2023 Supreme(SC) 913

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Satender Kumar Antil – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Application No. 2034 of 2022 in M.A. 1849 of 2021 in SLP(Crl) No. 5191 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2023

The main legal point established in this judgment is the importance of filing compliance reports and the need for standardized formats and monitoring of compliance by judicial officers. The court emphasizes the significance of adhering to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and highlights the need for timely decision-making in bail applications.

Headnote:

Compliance with the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 'Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar' (2014) 8 SCC 273, specifically regarding section 41 and 41A of CrPC, is being assessed. The court also considers compliance with section 88, 170, 204, and 209 of CrPC while deciding bail applications. The court examines the strict compliance with the mandate laid down in the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sidharth vs State of UP (2021) 1 SCC 676. The court also evaluates compliance with the directions passed in Bhim Singh vs UOI (2015) 13 SCC 605 for the release of under trial prisoners eligible for bail under section 436A of CrPC. The court assesses the time taken to decide regular bail applications and anticipatory bail applications. The court provides a blank format for the compliance report to facilitate the assessment.

Fact of the Case:

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel submits that while a large number of High Courts have filed their compliance report, no compliance report has been filed by the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Rajasthan and Tripura. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court of Tripura submits that he filed it yesterday and naturally it is not on record. Learned counsel appearing for the High Courts of Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh and Rajasthan request for a week's time to file the report. High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unrepresented. Let notice be issued to the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh as to why no arrangement has been made for representation before this Court. Now turning to the states which are yet to file the compliance report. It appears that hardly any of the states have filed the report. The States who have not filed or at least not given a copy to Mr. Sidharth Luthra's office are thirty in number. The CBI has also not filed compliance report. We grant two weeks' time to the CBI and the States to file their compliance report, failing which, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode. Mr. Luthra submits that the model adopted for giving information by Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana High Courts is the appropriate one in relation to their States and others do not disclose the full information. The States as well as the High Courts are called upon to collect the affidavits of Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana from Mr. Luthra's office and the compliance report now filed must be in that format. Three weeks' time is granted to do the needful as aforesaid. The affidavits to be filed by the High Courts will incorporate whether they have been monitoring this aspect or not and whether judicial officers are not complying with this aspect. List on 21st March, 2023. The judgment in the present case i.e. 'Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI' reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 and the judgment in Siddharth's case (supra) should be incorporated as part of the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.

Finding of the Court:

The court notes that several High Courts and States have not filed their compliance report. The court grants two weeks' time for the CBI and the States to file their compliance report, and if they fail to do so, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode. The court also directs the States and High Courts to adopt the model of giving information used by Maharashtra and Punjab & Haryana High Courts. The court grants three weeks' time for the States and High Courts to collect the affidavits and file the compliance report in the appropriate format. The court further instructs the High Courts to incorporate whether they have been monitoring this aspect and whether judicial officers are complying with the aspect. The court orders that the judgments in the present case and Siddharth's case should be included in the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the importance of filing compliance reports and directs the CBI and the States to file their reports within two weeks. The court also highlights the need for the States and High Courts to adopt a standardized format for the compliance report and incorporate monitoring of the aspect and compliance by judicial officers. The court further orders the inclusion of the judgments in the present case and Siddharth's case in the judicial academies' curriculum.

Result: The court grants two weeks' time for the CBI and the States to file their compliance report, failing which, their respective Home Secretaries will appear personally through the virtual mode. The court also grants three weeks' time for the States and High Courts to collect the affidavits and file the compliance report in the appropriate format. The court orders the inclusion of the judgments in the present case and Siddharth's case in the curriculum of the State Judicial Academies and the National Judicial Academy.