1986 (11) TMI 392 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Emphasizes Preferential Consideration in Bail, Advocates for National Court of Appeal

BIHAR LEGAL SUPPORT SOCIETY NEW DELHI Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of providing preferential consideration to the poor and disadvantaged sections of society in bail matters. It ... - Issues:1. Consideration of special leave petitions against refusal of bail or anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.2. Administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in listing special leave petitions.3. Role and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in correcting miscarriages of justice.4. Evolution of public interest litigation and the court's duty towards the poor and disadvantaged sections of society.5. Articulation of norms by the Supreme Court in entertaining special leave petitions.Analysis:1. The writ petition filed by the Bihar Legal Support Society raised the issue of the Supreme Court's approach towards special leave petitions concerning bail or anticipatory bail. The petitioner emphasized the importance of treating the bail applications of all individuals equally, regardless of their social or economic status. The Court acknowledged the significance of providing preferential consideration to the poor and disadvantaged sections of society due to historical injustices and lack of access to justice. The Court clarified that it has always prioritized the rights of the marginalized over the affluent and emphasized its duty to assist vulnerable sections in realizing their entitlements and combating exploitation.2. The Court highlighted that the decision to list special leave petitions immediately against refusal of bail or anticipatory bail falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice. While the Court refrained from issuing a specific direction in this regard, it mentioned that petitioners have the opportunity to request urgent listing before the Chief Justice. The Court underscored that the Supreme Court was not intended to function as a regular appellate court for challenging lower court orders but rather as an apex court to establish legal precedents and intervene in cases of grave miscarriage of justice.3. Regarding the role of the Supreme Court in correcting miscarriages of justice, the Court emphasized the limited scope of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court highlighted the need for a National Court of Appeal to handle appeals from High Courts and Tribunals in various cases, leaving the Supreme Court to focus primarily on constitutional and public law matters. The Court stressed that interference by the apex court should be restricted to cases involving substantial legal questions or egregious miscarriages of justice.4. The judgment elaborated on the evolution of public interest litigation as a strategy to facilitate access to justice for the poor and disadvantaged sections of society. The Court underscored its commitment to serving as a beacon of hope for millions of individuals facing destitution and suffering. The Court reiterated its duty to address the economic and social entitlements of marginalized groups and emphasized the importance of public interest litigation in ensuring justice reaches those most in need.5. The Court articulated norms to guide its discretion in entertaining special leave petitions related to bail or anticipatory bail orders. It referenced a previous order emphasizing that the Supreme Court should refrain from routinely interfering in such matters, as they are typically within the purview of the High Courts. The Court reiterated the policy principle that it should only intervene in exceptional cases involving bail decisions, with the High Court generally being the final authority. The writ petition was disposed of based on these principles, appreciating the petitioner's advocacy for the underprivileged in initiating the public interest litigation.