Those without means languish in prisons as sub-tests, the court says.
On Friday, the Supreme Court called on judges to protect personal liberty and the right of ordinary people to bail, saying “liberty is not a gift for the few.” Ordinary citizens without the means or resources to move higher courts or the Supreme Court languished in prisons as sub-tests, he said.
“Deprivation of liberty, even for a single day, is one day too many,” a court of judges DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra said in an order on Friday.
“It is through the instrumentality of bail that the primary interest of our criminal justice system in preserving the presumption of innocence finds its most eloquent expression,” observed Judge Chandrachud, who wrote the sentence. The state should not be allowed to use criminal law to harass citizens, he said.
Regarding the court’s decision to grant bail to Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami in an incitement to the suicide case, the ruling stated prima facie that the FIR against Mr. Goswami did not establish the charges against him. .
Comment | Republic and its discontent
The sentence read: “Freedom survives thanks to the vigilance of its citizens, the cacophony of the media and the dusty corridors of the courts that live with the empire of [and not by] law. However, too often, freedom is a victim when one of these components is found failing.
The courts were the “first line of defense” against the deprivation of personal liberty of citizens. But reality, Judge Chandrachud noted, showed that the subtests remained behind bars while their bail requests moved from one rung to another of the courts.
Pleas pending bail
To reinforce this point, Judge Chandrachud noted that 91,568 requests for bail were pending in the higher courts, while requests for bail of 1.96 lakh were still awaiting a hearing in the district courts.
The ruling focused on the importance of the district judiciary.
Judge Chandrachud said that the district judiciary was only “subordinate” in hierarchy. Less to none when it came to saving the lives of citizens or doing them justice. The district judiciary “must be attentive to the situation that prevails on the ground, in prisons and police stations where human dignity is not protected.”
Arnab Goswami case
The verdict gave detailed reasons for the higher court’s decision to grant Mr. Goswami bail on 11 November.
The ruling said that a “prima facie assessment” by the FIR against Mr. Goswami did not establish the ingredients of the crime of instigation to suicide against him. He declared that “the doors of the Supreme Court cannot be closed to a citizen who can establish prima facie that the instrumentality of the State is being armed to use the force of criminal law.”
The judgment criticized the Bombay High Court for “not realizing” or even attempting to make an expensive assessment of the content of the FIR. He said the Superior Court did not consider the “disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 IPC [abetment to suicide]”.
Judge Chandrachud said the Supreme Court made a mistake in asking Mr. Goswami to request a regular bond instead of focusing on his request to annul the FIR. “The Superior Court should not exclude itself from the exercise of power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of his personal freedom in excess of the power of the State,” he said.
.
