Supreme Court Suggests Major Reforms For Faster Disposal Of Bail Pleas In High Courts

In Sunny Chouhan v State of Punjab, the Supreme Court on Monday proposed several measures to help High Courts dispose of bail applications more quickly. The Court expressed concern over the growing delay in listing and deciding bail matters across different High Courts in the country.

A Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the matter after previously seeking details from High Courts regarding pending bail applications and the systems being followed for their disposal.

The Court noted that most High Courts had submitted the required information and had already taken steps to improve the disposal of bail pleas. However, it highlighted serious pendency issues in certain courts, especially the Allahabad High Court.

The Bench observed that despite judges hearing hundreds of matters daily, the pendency of bail applications in the Allahabad High Court remained extremely high. The Court asked the Chief Justice and Administrative Committee of the High Court to develop a mechanism through which every bail application receives a fixed hearing date.

The Supreme Court also suggested “judicial resource aggregation” and recommended that bail matters should receive priority in the daily cause list. Similar concerns were raised regarding the Patna High Court, where the Court noted that bail matters are sometimes adjourned for months.

The Bench further referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, where more than 63,000 bail applications were reportedly pending around a year ago. The Court described the situation as alarming, while expressing hope that the number had reduced since then.

Clarifying that the observations were not meant as criticism of any High Court, the Supreme Court said the purpose was to strengthen the justice delivery system and improve protection of personal liberty.

The Court placed several suggestions on record for all High Courts. It recommended automatic software-based listing of bail matters on a weekly or fortnightly basis to avoid unnecessary delays in hearing.

It also suggested mandatory filing of status reports before the first hearing and advance service of bail petitions on the office of the Advocate General or concerned government authorities.

The Bench recommended that fresh bail applications should ideally be listed within a week of filing or at least on alternate working days. It also suggested automatic re-listing of matters that could not be heard and proposed fixing an outer timeline for disposal of bail applications.

Importantly, the Court cautioned against casual adjournments sought by government lawyers. It reminded courts and state authorities of their “solemn duty towards fundamental rights.”

The Supreme Court also addressed delays in bail hearings under the NDPS Act due to pending forensic science laboratory reports. It requested High Courts to coordinate with State governments and authorities to ensure such reports are submitted within a reasonable period.

The Bench further stressed the importance of victims’ participation in criminal proceedings. It observed, “Victim has right to be heard at every stage, including bail application of accused.”

The Court also recommended the use of digital portals for uploading status reports to make proceedings smoother and faster.

Earlier, in Anna Waman Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court had directed High Courts to dispose of bail matters within two months from the date of filing.