Supreme Court Flags Delay In Amending Calcutta High Court Rule Requiring Division Bench Instead Of Single Judge For Certain Bail Cases

The Supreme Court recently raised concerns over the delay in amending the Calcutta High Court Rules on the aspect of the strength of the bench hearing bail applications, pointing out that the proposal to amend the Rule has been pending for 12 years.

The issue relates to the proviso to Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules, which requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan noted that although the Full Court had on February 20, 2025, decided to amend the Rule, it had only referred the matter to the Rule Committee for drafting the amendment instead of directly implementing the change.

“Though it was resolved that proviso to sub-rule 2 of 1 Rule 9 of the Rules of the Chapter II of the High Court Appellate Side Rules should be suitably amended, instead of passing a resolution of amendment, now the issue has been referred to the Rule Committee for preparing a draft of amendment. We may note here that the proposal to amend the said Rule is 12 years old as can be seen from paragraph 5 of the report”, the Court observed.

The Court had earlier questioned why the Calcutta High Court was assigning regular and anticipatory bail applications to Division Benches when all other High Courts had Single Judge hear such matters. It sought an explanation from the High Court and asked for data on bail applications filed in 2024 and their pendency.

From the compliance report submitted by the Registrar General-in-Charge of the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court noted that in 2024, more than 11,000 bail applications—both regular and anticipatory—were filed before the High Court.

The Court directed the High Court to place on record its further decision and scheduled the next hearing for March 24, 2025. It also ordered that a copy of its order be forwarded to the High Court's Registrar General to be placed before the Chief Justice. The Court expressed confidence that the Full Court would take an early decision, keeping in mind the larger interests of justice.

Rule 9(2) of the High Court Appellate Side Rules requires certain bail applications to be heard by a Division Bench instead of a Single Judge. The Rule applies to cases where the punishment may exceed seven years, anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 of the CrPC, and bail applications under laws such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1986, and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.

The issue came up in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging a Calcutta High Court order granting bail in a murder case.

Case no. – Mahatab Ali v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case Title – Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1474/2024