State compliance with anticipatory bail directions in specified districts; ordered to file standing orders or Home Secretaries appear.

The dominant issue was non-compliance by certain States in specified districts with SC directions governing anticipatory bail matters. SC held that its earlier order dated 21.03.2023 had unequivocally clarified that the directions applied to anticipatory bail cases, negating any plea of confusion. On that basis, SC directed the States to supply copies of relevant standing orders within two weeks, failing which their Home Secretaries were required to remain personally present before the Court, and the matter was listed for further compliance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment.
2. Compliance by High Courts and States/UTs.
3. Directions to prosecutors.
4. Specific illustrative cases of non-compliance.
5. Status of compliance reports and standing orders.

Summary:

Non-compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment:

The Supreme Court dismissed multiple intervention and direction applications, stating that the remedy lies in pointing out the judgment of this Court and seeking orders from the concerned Court. If the judgment is perceived to be followed in breach, rights should be agitated in independent proceedings. The Court emphasized that it will not entertain such applications henceforth, and the Registry should not list them.

Compliance by High Courts and States/UTs:

The High Courts have filed compliance affidavits. However, non-compliance persists in certain districts. The Court directed High Courts to ensure compliance and inform the Supreme Court accordingly. The Allahabad High Court was specifically called upon to file an affidavit within four weeks, detailing steps taken and identifying judicial officers frequently passing non-conforming orders. The Court emphasized the need for judicial officers to upgrade their skills in a Judicial Academy.

Directions to prosecutors:

Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Amicus Curiae, noted the lack of material to assist the Court regarding directions to prosecutors. The Court directed compliance within four weeks, with advance copies to Mr. Luthra. Failure to comply would necessitate the presence of concerned Secretaries or heads of prosecuting agencies in Court. Training programs should be organized to update Prosecutors.

Specific illustrative cases of non-compliance:

The Court highlighted specific non-compliance cases, including orders from the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption CBI Court No.1, Ghaziabad. These cases illustrated judicial officers not following the Supreme Court's judgment, necessitating skill upgradation in a Judicial Academy.

Status of compliance reports and standing orders:

The Court noted that some States/UTs have yet to file compliance reports or supply standing orders. Non-compliant States include Karnataka, Telangana, Haryana, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, and Lakshadweep. States that filed affidavits but not standing orders include Tamil Nadu, Assam, UT of Puducherry, Kerala, and Odisha. The Court directed these States to supply copies within two weeks, failing which Home Secretaries would need to be present in Court. States with non-conforming standing orders, such as Manipur, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, and West Bengal, were given two weeks to issue corrected orders.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, acknowledged the non-compliance of the CBI affidavit and requested time to file a correct affidavit within four weeks. The Court made interim orders dated 21.03.2023 absolute and disposed of the related applications.

Next hearing is scheduled for 08.08.2023.

---