Case Citation
Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Ayub Khan v. The State of Rajasthan
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10587 of 2023]
Date of Judgment: December 17, 2024
Judge(s): Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Facts
The appellant, Ayub Khan, a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service, joined the judiciary in 1993. In this case, the appellant rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged with offenses under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 3/25, and 5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The accused then moved the High Court, which granted bail and passed adverse observations against the appellant. The High Court observed that the appellant failed to comply with the directions issued earlier in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan, which mandated incorporating antecedent details of the accused in a tabular format while deciding bail applications. Subsequent orders by the High Court sought explanations from the appellant and imposed further directions.
Contentions of appellant
The appellant contended that the High Court’s insistence on incorporating antecedents in a specific tabular format while deciding bail applications amounted to interference with judicial discretion. He argued that these directions were beyond the powers of the High Court and were not binding but merely suggestive. The appellant also stated that his omission occurred due to excessive work pressure and tendered an apology while assuring compliance in the future. The appellant emphasized that the High Court’s adverse remarks and directions could adversely impact his judicial career.
Contentions of respondent
The State, represented by the respondent, assisted the Court and provided arguments in favor of clarifying the judicial discretion of the Trial Courts in handling bail matters. However, the focus remained on addressing the larger issue of whether High Courts could dictate the format and details to be included in bail orders.
Issues on this judgment
- Whether the directions issued by the Rajasthan High Court in Jugal Kishore v. State of Rajasthan for incorporating antecedents in a tabular format are binding on the Trial Courts.
- Whether non-compliance with the said directions amounts to indiscipline or contempt by a judicial officer.
- Whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction in passing adverse remarks and calling for explanations from the appellant on the judicial side.
Observations/findings by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that while the High Court has the authority to set principles for deciding bail applications, it cannot dictate the exact format or manner in which bail orders are written. It emphasized that antecedents are one of several factors for granting bail, and their inclusion in a prescribed format is not mandatory. The Court found that the High Court’s directions in Jugal Kishore were suggestive and not binding. It further held that the High Court erred in treating the appellant’s omission as an act of indiscipline or contempt. The Court criticized the High Court’s approach, stating that it caused unnecessary embarrassment and wasted judicial time. The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial officers must be protected from unwarranted strictures that could harm their careers.
Principle of the case
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that while higher courts can correct errors on the judicial side, they cannot interfere with the judicial discretion of lower courts by mandating how orders should be structured. Directions to follow a specific format in judicial orders amount to interference with independence and discretion of the judiciary. Additionally, adverse remarks against judicial officers must be avoided, as they can unfairly impact their careers.
Final order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and:
- Expunged all adverse remarks and observations against the appellant.
- Set aside the High Court’s directions that treated non-compliance with Jugal Kishore as indiscipline or contempt.
- Directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court for placing it before the Chief Justice.
Importance of this judgment to society
This judgment is significant as it upholds the independence of the judiciary, particularly the lower courts, ensuring that their discretion is not curtailed by rigid procedural requirements imposed by higher courts. It clarifies that principles for deciding cases can be laid down, but dictating the format or content of judicial orders undermines judicial autonomy. By expunging unwarranted strictures, the Supreme Court has reinforced the need to protect judicial officers from undue pressure or embarrassment, thereby preserving the integrity and confidence in the judicial system. This decision also highlights the importance of judicial restraint and respect for the hierarchical structure of courts, ensuring fairness and efficient functioning of the justice delivery system.
