Ruling on Sisodia calls for judicial reforms in bail process

New Delhi The Supreme Court verdict granting bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia in connection with the Delhi excise policy case marks a critical precedent, particularly in high-profile cases where gravity of charges and prolonged incarceration has been used as tools to deny individuals their right to liberty.
The judgment, authored by justice Bhushan R Gavai, comes as a beacon of hope for those advocating for the fundamental right to a speedy trial, emphasising the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception.
The Supreme Court, in its ruling, underscored the sacrosanct nature of the right to a speedy trial, stating that the prolonged incarceration of Sisodia — 17 months after his arrest — had effectively deprived him of this fundamental right. The bench, also comprising justice KV Viswanathan, highlighted that the trial had not yet commenced, despite the significant amount of time that had passed, which further accentuated the denial of Sisodia’s right to liberty.
“As observed by this court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor,” the court noted in its judgment.
Drawing extensively from its previous landmark cases, the court reiterated the judiciary’s long-standing principle that bail should be the norm, with incarceration being an exception. It lamented that this principle has been often overlooked by district courts and high courts, leading to unnecessary and prolonged detentions, which in turn results in an overwhelming number of bail petitions reaching the Supreme Court.
“From our experience, we can say that it appears that trial courts and high courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency,” the judgment stated.
Quoting from the 1978 case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the bench reminded the subordinate courts that “bail is not to be withheld as a punishment”. The court observed that in many instances, both trial courts and high courts appear to “play safe” by denying bail, which contradicts the well-established legal principle that “bail is rule and refusal is an exception”.
The judgment asserted: “It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that ‘bail is rule and jail is exception’… The prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.”
This ruling not only grants Sisodia relief but also sets a significant precedent that could be leveraged by other political figures facing similar legal challenges, including Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal. The judgment provides Kejriwal and his legal team with a strong foundation to argue for regular bail in the Delhi excise policy case, citing prolonged incarceration without a trial. Kejriwal was arrested in March.
The court’s decision to highlight the immense volume of evidence — over 100,000 pages of digitised documents and 493 witnesses — further cemented the argument that keeping Sisodia in custody with no imminent trial in sight would violate his right to liberty.
The judgment critiques the judicial process that allows for indefinite detention under the guise of awaiting trial, thus reinforcing the necessity of upholding the accused’s fundamental rights.
The significance of this ruling extends beyond the immediate relief granted to the Aam Aadmi Party leader. It sends a clear message to the judiciary and law enforcement agencies regarding the treatment of accused individuals in high-profile cases. By asserting that the mere seriousness of an alleged crime does not justify prolonged detention, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the importance of due process and the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.
The court also referred to its recent decision in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra (2024), where it was held that the state or any prosecuting agency should not oppose bail pleas on the grounds of the crime’s severity if they are unable to ensure a speedy trial. This perspective aligns with the broader judicial philosophy that seeks to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sisodia’s case is a crucial step toward reforming the approach to bail in India’s judicial system, particularly in politically charged cases. It underscores the need for a more balanced and rights-based approach, where the principles of liberty and fair trial are not compromised in the pursuit of justice. This judgment not only impacts the ongoing legal battle surrounding the Delhi excise scam but also sets a broader precedent for future cases, potentially altering the trajectory of high-profile prosecutions in India.