Context:
The Supreme Court of India granting bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister, after a prolonged period of detention, serves as a significant affirmation of its role as the protector of individual liberties. The Court, in a detailed articulation of its duties, emphasized that a constitutional court must prioritize constitutionalism and the rule of law, with liberty being a core element.
Relevance:
GS2-
- Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies
- Indian Constitution- Significant Provisions and Basic Structure
- Transparency and Accountability
Mains Question:
The Delhi Excise Policy case raises the question whether the liberty of individuals can be held hostage to the benevolence or sense of fairness of the prosecutor alone. Discuss. (15 Marks, 250 Words).
More on the Judgement:
- Citing the 2020 judgment in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Court underscored that liberty has always been a resilient principle throughout history.
- Reaffirming the long-standing constitutional principle from 1977 by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, that bail should be the norm and jail the exception, the Court emphasized that the right to a fair and speedy trial is inherent to the right to life under Article 21—a right denied to Mr. Sisodia.
- In reaching its decision, the Court considered its previous orders from the case, along with the extensive submissions presented in the initial proceedings, particularly highlighting the 56,000 pages of documents and 456 witnesses (which were later increased), which could cause significant delays in the trial.
- The Court also referenced several of its past judgments, from Kashmira Singh (1977) to more recent decisions in P. Chidambaram (2020) and Satender Kumar Antil (2022), emphasizing the accused’s right to a speedy trial.
- The Court further asserted that the constitutional mandate must prevail as the supreme law and ruled that the right to bail in cases of delay and prolonged incarceration, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be interpreted under Section 439 Cr.PC and Section 45 of the PMLA [Prevention of Money Laundering Act].
Significance of the Judgement:
- This judgment will undoubtedly reassure those concerned with civil liberties, especially given the ongoing worries about the misuse of stringent penal laws in the country and the oppressive enforcement of the PMLA.
- Noting recent information provided to Parliament, the Court observed that out of over 5,000 cases filed under the PMLA in the past decade, only 40 have resulted in convictions.
- The Minister of State for Finance stated in the Rajya Sabha that the Enforcement Directorate filed 15 enforcement case information reports (ECIRs) in 2019, 28 in 2020, 26 in 2021, 34 in 2022, 26 in 2023, and three in 2024 as of July 31, with only one conviction reported in 2020.
- Clearly, the criminal justice system’s procedures, which often result in endless delays, are oppressive, with the process itself becoming the punishment.
- The judiciary has acknowledged this reality and has poignantly described it as the “mortality of justice at the hands of law” in previous rulings like Sushil Kumar Sen (1975) and Rani Kusum (2005).
A Caveat:
- Despite its strong constitutional foundation, the judgment raises a concerning issue. Was it appropriate for the Court, in line with its earlier observations, to allow the continued detention of the accused based on the prosecution’s assurance that the trial would conclude within six to eight months?
- Or to extend the accused’s confinement based on the prosecution’s statement, recorded in the Court’s second order on June 4, 2024, that the complaint or charge sheet would be filed by July 3, 2024?
- Does this not, in a way, allow the prosecutor to act as a judge in their own case, which contradicts fundamental principles of natural justice and undermines the procedural requirements of a fair trial?
The Guarantee of Civil Liberties:
- In our constitutional framework, individual liberty cannot depend solely on the benevolence or fairness of the prosecutor. It must rest on the unshakable foundation of justice, rooted in inalienable rights that we carry from birth to death.
- We understand that these sacred rights underpin the law; legal processes that are unjust have no merit, and laws that fail to deliver justice must be reformed. The denial of freedom equates to the denial of humanity itself.
- Therefore, protecting against executive overreach is the primary responsibility of the apex Court’s constitutional and moral authority.
- Although the ultimate safeguard of civil liberties lies in the will and determination of the people, as Justice Robert Jackson of the United States highlighted in *Douglas vs. City of Jeannette* (1943), the courts’ role in defending human rights against encroachment is a vital test of a healthy democracy.
- In ultimately restoring Delhi Deputy Chief Minister’s liberty while his case is still pending, the apex court has cleared itself of any charges of inconsistency in earlier proceedings, despite the legal and factual grounds that existed for granting bail. The Court need no longer grapple with a conflicted conscience.
Conclusion:
The true success of this judgment will be if undertrials are not left to languish in custody indefinitely, losing their freedom, reputation, privacy, and dignity without compensation or acknowledgment. The nation must shift its politics away from personal vendettas, focusing instead on the noble pursuit of justice and dignity for all, thereby reinvigorating a democracy under strain.
