Supreme Court Sets Two-Month Deadline For Disposal Of Bail Applications
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2025-09-13 06:24:48
About the Author
Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
View all posts by this Author
The Supreme Court has once again had to remind the judiciary of a principle that should have been second nature by now: bail, not jail, is the rule. On Friday, the apex court told High Courts to stop dragging their feet - decide bail pleas within two months. No excuses. And it went further, asking High Courts to direct trial courts to treat personal liberty cases like the urgent matters they are. This is not just a polite nudge; it is a sharp rebuke of the lethargy that has kept countless undertrials locked up without good reason.
The trigger for the Supreme Court outburst was a case where the Bombay HC had been sitting on an anticipatory bail petition for nearly six years. The bench said that "applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty." It added that "prolonged delay in disposal not only frustrates the object of Code of Criminal Procedure but also amounts to a denial of justice, contrary to the constitutional ethos reflected in Articles 14 and 21."
The law is crystal clear: if the accused is not a flight risk, will not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses, and the charges are under a bailable section, then bail should be routine. Not a debate, not a marathon of adjournments. Yet what happens in reality? People waste months, even years, behind bars while courts take their sweet time. Liberty becomes collateral damage to paperwork and misplaced caution.
Recently, the Delhi HC denied bail to Umar Khalid and 12 others in the Delhi riots conspiracy case. A UAPA-accused spent five years in custody without trial before the Supreme Court finally stepped in and granted bail, making it clear that holding someone for that long without a verdict violates their right to a speedy trial. In Uttar Pradesh, a man named Aftab was granted bail but stayed in jail for nearly a month more because of paperwork delays; the Court had to order compensation, noting that liberty cannot be held hostage to technicalities. In Kolkata, two men accused in a 2012 murder case were granted bail after spending twelve years behind bars as their trial dragged on with only a fraction of witnesses examined. These are not isolated incidents - they are symptoms of a justice system that has normalized delay and turned custody into default punishment.
The Supreme Court's frustration is obvious - and justified. Lower courts too often treat bail like a privilege, not a right. Some judges stall because they fear being blamed if the accused commits a crime when released on bail. Others hide behind process, endlessly pushing hearings down the calendar. Meanwhile, prisons overflow, families break apart, and lives are chewed up by a system that punishes before it even convicts.
The Supreme Court's new two-month deadline is not some optional guideline. It's an order. And the High Courts must enforce it with trial courts. Personal liberty cases cannot be pushed to the bottom of the docket anymore. Every day of delay is a day stolen - time that no verdict, no acquittal, can ever return.
The judiciary faces a choice. Will it finally honour the principle of bail as the rule, or will it keep repeating the phrase while acting in the opposite direction? Enough lip service. The Constitution is not a slogan; it is a promise. And right now, that promise is being broken in overcrowded cells across the country.
The Supreme Court has drawn the line. Now it's up to the rest of the judiciary to show whether it still values liberty - or whether it will keep people locked up, waiting, forgotten.
