Supreme Court Gives Final Chance To HCs, Centre & States/UTs To Comply With Directions To Prevent Unnecessary Arrests & Remand

The Division Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar was hearing an application, filed in the main matter of Satender Kumar Antil, for compliance with the directions issued.

In the Satender Kumar Anil case, the court had issued a slew of directions on July 11, 2022, to prevent arbitrary arrest and to streamline the process of granting bail, upholding cardinal criminal principle of 'bail is the norm, jail is an exception'.

It also recommended the Union Government to introduce a special enactment in the nature of a "Bail Act" to streamline the grant of bail.

The latest order in question was issued on August 6 in which the Court directed that every Magistrate and Sessions judge inform its jurisdictional Principal District judge about any form of non-compliance by the police in following the arrest guidelines laid down in the Satender Kumar Antil's case within 1 week of recording such non-compliance.

The order found non-compliance with two specific directions: "100.2 The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.

100.3 The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Sections 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail."

It was also informed by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who is the amicus in this case, that despite the undertrial prisoners being enlarged on bail, they remain in custody since no family member or friend is coming forward to stand as surety or furnish bonds on their behalf. Therefore, it directed all High Courts, States and Union Territories must ensure compliance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for undertrial prisoners issued vide order dated February 13.

Yesterday, Luthra submitted a status report of compliance. He informed that the States including West Bengal, Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland, Lakshadweep, Dadra Nagar Haveli, Meghalaya, Punjab, Sikkim and Uttar Pradesh have not complied. He added that even the Union Government has not complied with this.

It was also found that the compliance report has not been given to the amicus office. Luthra also noted that some High Courts including Bombay High Court, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Patna High Court, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court and Tripura High Court have not complied.

In regard to this, the Court has directed the Registrar General of the respective High Courts to make sure the compliance is made, "failing which, appropriate orders would be passed".

As regards the directions passed for ensuring compliance with the SOP for undertrial prisoners, Luthra informed the Court that the High Court of Meghalaya has filed an affidavit in this regard. He added that this could be considered as a Model Affidavit and stated that the same me be allowed to be circulated to all States based on which, similar compliance could be filed.

Background

In pursuant to the directions, the Supreme Court has time and again passed orders to comply with these directions. One such order was passed last year, wherein the Court directed the inclusion of these landmark decisions in the curriculum of judicial academies.

Previously, the Court had directed the High Courts to inform whether the decisions taken in Siddharth v. State of UP and Satender Kumar have been included in the curriculum of the judicial academy.

Case Details: Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, MA 2034/2022 in MA 1849/2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191/2021

Appearance: Senior advocate Sidhartha Luthra (amicus curiae), ASG Aishwarya Bhati for Union.