Inordinate Delay in Deciding Anticipatory Bail Applications Is Constitutionally Impermissible: Supreme Court Reprimands Judicial Delay in Bail Matters

“Applications Affecting Personal Liberty Must Not Be Kept Pending Indefinitely”:  In a sharp rebuke to the judiciary on the issue of prolonged and unjustified delays in deciding anticipatory bail applications, the Supreme Court, in its latest ruling has drawn a decisive line. The Court held that keeping bail applications pending for years is violative of the fundamental rights of an individual under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and warned that such delays amount to a “denial of justice”.

The bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, while dismissing the appeals for anticipatory bail by two retired revenue officials in a 1996 land fraud case, turned the spotlight on the alarming procedural stagnation in the bail jurisprudence across High Courts. The appellants’ anticipatory bail applications, filed in 2019, remained pending for nearly six years before they were finally disposed of by the Bombay High Court on July 4, 2025—a fact that drew strong disapproval from the apex court.

The Court observed, “There is no justification for deferring decision-making and allowing a sword of Damocles to hang over the applicant’s head. In matters concerning liberty, bail courts must be sensitive and ensure that constitutional ethos is upheld.”

“Delay in Bail Adjudication Is Not Just Procedural Laxity, It Is Denial of Fundamental Rights”: Supreme Court Issues Nationwide Directions

Terming the long-pending bail hearings as “detrimental to the valuable right of a person”, the Court directed that all High Courts and subordinate courts must decide bail and anticipatory bail applications expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of filing. Noting that bail matters are supposed to be straightforward judicial exercises turning on case-specific facts, the Court reiterated that delays are not just administrative inconveniences but grave constitutional failures.

In an emphatic declaration, the Court stated: “Applications concerning personal liberty cannot be kept pending for years while the applicants remain under a cloud of uncertainty. Such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right to liberty.”

The judgment also cited a line of previous rulings such as Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre v. State of Maharashtra, Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, and Rajanti Devi v. Union of India, all of which warned against the inertia in deciding bail pleas. The Court observed that these precedents are being disregarded in practice despite their clear constitutional mandates.

“Constitutional Ethos Demands Prompt Decisions in Matters Involving Personal Liberty”: Supreme Court Mandates Administrative Action

Calling for urgent administrative reforms, the Court directed that:

• High Courts must issue administrative circulars to their subordinate courts instructing prioritisation of bail and anticipatory bail hearings.

• Bail pleas should not be kept in abeyance without specific reasons or adjourned without date.

• Judicial officers must ensure that no person is left in procedural limbo, particularly when liberty is at stake.

The Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court was also directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to all High Courts, urging immediate compliance and internal monitoring.

In its judgment, the Court lamented: “While docket explosion remains a chronic challenge, cases involving personal liberty deserve precedence. The grant or refusal of bail, anticipatory or otherwise, is ordinarily a straightforward exercise.”

“Not deciding bail applications expeditiously and shunting away the matter on one or the other ground would deprive the party of their precious right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

“Bail Delays Are Not Mere Oversight—They Amount to Judicial Apathy”: Court Cites Multiple Precedents and Institutional Failures

Citing Rajesh Seth v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the High Court admitted a bail application but never heard the interim plea, and Sanjay v. NCT of Delhi, where bail was listed after three months without interim protection, the Court noted that such delays are repeated and systemic.

In Rajanti Devi, the Court had earlier expressed displeasure that an anticipatory bail plea was heard and judgment reserved for nearly one year. In the current case, the interim protection granted to the appellants was extended multiple times, yet the matter was never adjudicated on merits until six years later, exposing a serious procedural failure.

Quoting from its own precedents, the Court stated: “In matters relating to anticipatory bail, admitting the application and then deferring decision indefinitely is not a procedure which can be countenanced.”

“This type of indefinite adjournment in a matter relating to anticipatory bail, that too after admitting it, is detrimental to the valuable right of a person.”

Personal Liberty Must Not Be Suspended by Procedural Delay

Ultimately, while denying anticipatory bail to the appellants on merits, the Supreme Court took this case as an opportunity to reiterate and reinforce judicial responsibility in bail matters. It concluded that:

“Bail and anticipatory bail applications shall not be kept pending for long durations without passing orders either way, as such pendency directly impinges upon the fundamental right to liberty.”

“High Courts must devise suitable mechanisms to avoid accumulation of pending bail/anticipatory bail applications and ensure that the liberty of citizens is not left in abeyance.”

Date of Decision: September 12, 2025