Supreme Court Issues Final Warning To States, UTs, High Courts, And CBI Over Nationwide Non-Compliance With Arrest, Bail Safeguards

“There Is No Room For Disobedience To Binding Precedent Under Article 141”, In a momentous continuation of its monitoring jurisdiction in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, the Supreme Court passed a far-reaching compliance order, expressing serious dissatisfaction with the continued defiance by several States, Union Territories, High Courts, the Union of India and the CBI, in failing to adhere to its landmark rulings on arrest procedures, bail jurisprudence, and the release of undertrial prisoners.

The bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh declared in unequivocal terms:

“We are not suggesting the law, we are reiterating the law. This is a binding mandate under Article 141 of the Constitution. All authorities are bound to obey.”

Invoking its earlier directions issued in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and subsequent follow-up orders dated 06.08.2024, 21.01.2025, and 15.10.2025, the Court recorded glaring lapses in filing compliance affidavits even after an addendum was filed by Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Amicus Curiae, as early as 25 November 2025.

“This Is The Last And Final Opportunity – Defiance Of Law Cannot Continue Under Judicial Watch”

The Supreme Court, invoking the doctrine of continuing mandamus, issued a final ultimatum granting three weeks for full compliance with its directions and directed that all compliance affidavits must be filed within one week thereafter, after serving the Amicus Curiae.

In its operative portion, the Court declared: “A last and final chance is given, to all the aforementioned States, Union Territories, the Union of India and the CBI, to ensure strict compliance with the directions issued, in this order, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

The Court has listed the matter for 17 March 2026 at 2:00 PM, warning that the time for excuses is now over.

“Arrest Guidelines Are Not Optional – States Must Act Against Investigating Officers Violating Sections 41 & 41-A CrPC”

The heart of the Court’s concern remained the flagrant disregard of arrest safeguards under Sections 41 and 41-A of CrPC, now reflected under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court issued State-specific directions, calling out Haryana, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh by name and demanding precise action against erring police officers. For instance, in the case of FIR No. 268/2022 in Faridabad, the Court directed Haryana to report what action has been taken against the Investigating Officer for ignoring the mandate of notice of appearance under Section 41-A CrPC.

Justice Sundresh reminded: “We have already held in Satender Kumar Antil that arrest is not to be made mechanically. Any violation of Sections 41 and 41-A must result in accountability.”

States were directed to provide data on arrest violations, disciplinary action, and compliance with Para 100.2 of the Satender Kumar Antil judgment, which obligates adherence to procedural safeguards prior to arrest.

“Liberty Cannot Be Made Conditional Upon Poverty – Undertrial Prisoners Deserve Immediate Release If Bail Is Granted”

In perhaps the most socially impactful segment of the order, the Court lamented that thousands of undertrial prisoners (UTPs) remain behind bars despite being granted bail, solely due to poverty or lack of sureties.

Highlighting systemic inertia, the Court directed several States and High Courts – including Chhattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Maharashtra and the High Courts of Bombay, Punjab & Haryana, and Kerala – to implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Poor Prisoners without delay.

“Where bail has been granted but the UTP remains in custody for want of surety, judicial officers must proactively modify bail conditions,” the Court directed.

The Court reiterated its earlier directions from 21.01.2025 and ordered Judicial Officers to be sensitised on invoking Section 440 CrPC to reduce or modify bail bonds when liberty is otherwise earned.

Justice Kotiswar Singh added: “Liberty must not be hostage to economic ability. Where bail is granted, custody must end unless reasons justify otherwise.”

“High Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators – Their Supervisory Role Must Be Assertive”

Turning its attention to the High Courts, the Court issued stern reminders that they were expected to supervise compliance at all judicial levels.

Notably, the Bombay High Court, which was initially reported to have “fully complied” with the directions, was later found to have only partially complied, as acknowledged by the Amicus Curiae. The Court corrected the record and directed immediate corrective measures to ensure time-bound implementation of SOPs for poor prisoners.

Similarly, High Courts of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab & Haryana, Rajasthan, Tripura, Manipur and Sikkim were asked to submit data and minutes of meetings of monitoring committees to demonstrate compliance.

“High Courts must not only issue directions but must monitor their execution. Mere circulation of orders is not compliance.” the Court reiterated.

“Union Of India Must Address Structural Deficiencies In Bail Infrastructure”

The Supreme Court also directed the Union of India to assess and report whether additional CBI Special Courts are needed in districts with high pendency and directed it to re-circulate procedural guidelines issued by the MHA regarding fund transfer to SNA Accounts.

The Court’s concern stems from continued pendency and delay in CBI trials, despite earlier directions on judicial manpower and budgetary support.

“CBI Must Explain Whether Advisory Memos Are Sufficient Disciplinary Action For Judicial Defiance”

In a direct message to the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court asked the agency to explain the disciplinary consequences for officers found violating binding Supreme Court rulings. Referring to the constitutional force of its directions under Article 141, the Court asked:

“Is an advisory memo the appropriate action against officers who act in breach of Supreme Court’s binding rulings?”

The CBI was directed to file its response in the upcoming hearing on 17 March 2026.

Interpretation Of Section 35(1)(b) Of BNSS Kept Open – Reasoned Order To Follow

A crucial development in the hearing was the submission of arguments by both Amicus Curiae Sidharth Luthra and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati regarding the scope and interpretation of Section 35(1)(b) of the BNSS, 2023, which mirrors the safeguards under Section 41 CrPC.

While reserving a detailed interpretation, the Court stated: “We have heard counsel. The order with detailed reasons shall follow.”

The outcome of this issue will have wide-ranging implications on the scope of arrest, police discretion, and safeguards under the new criminal procedure code which is set to replace the CrPC.

Compliance Cannot Be Discretionary When Liberty Is At Stake

With this order, the Supreme Court has left no ambiguity – non-compliance with its directions on bail, arrest, and liberty of undertrial prisoners will no longer be tolerated. The tone is stern, the timelines are fixed, and the consequences for inaction are looming.

The Court has sent a loud and clear message: liberty is not a matter of administrative convenience, and the rule of law cannot be subjected to bureaucratic delay or judicial silence.

The countdown to 17 March 2026 has begun – the next hearing may very well decide whether the Court must now shift from monitoring to enforcement.

Date of Decision: 15 January 2026