The Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of respect for courts and attempts to mislead them, stating, "In the last 40 years, the values have gone down, and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court." In response, the Court issued directives to streamline bail applications, emphasizing the need for transparency and disclosure.
The Court highlighted the degradation of moral values in society, possibly attributed to the education system, stating, "Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth." It urged lawyers to act as true court officers, emphasizing their role in assisting benches, particularly in bail cases.
To address discrepancies in bail orders, the Supreme Court directed that all bail applications must mention details of earlier applications and their status. The court suggested a visible indication of the application's sequence and recommended the inclusion of this information in order to understand better.
The Court stressed the importance of following this system meticulously to avoid confusion and directed the concerned registry to provide reports on pending bail applications related to the specific crime. The duty to apprise the bench of different bail orders concerning the litigants was emphasized for investigation officers and officials.
The directives came in response to a bail application related to a drug possession case, where the accused had moved multiple bail pleas without disclosing their status to the respective courts. While the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction with the applicant's conduct, it chose not to cancel bail, imposing a ₹10,000 cost instead.
The verdict's copy will be sent to all Chief Justices through the Registrar Generals of High Courts for necessary action and corrections.
Author: Anushka Taraniya
News writer, MIT ADT University