High courts should not feel that we are behaving like a headmaster: SC

The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned against imposing strict deadlines on high courts, remarking that such directions could create a perception that the apex court is acting as a “headmaster”.
Refusing to assign a fixed timeline for the Allahabad high court to re-decide a bail plea, a bench of justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan stressed the need to acknowledge the heavy caseload and challenges high courts face in managing their docket.
“High courts should not feel like we are behaving as a headmaster. It is not a proper practice to fix a date or a timeline,” remarked the bench while hearing the plea for expediting the reconsideration of a bail application.
Also read: CJI calls liberal system of adjournments counterproductive; defends new rules
The matter pertained to Amit Kumar, an accused in a murder case, who was granted bail by the Allahabad high court in May. The Supreme Court on Monday set aside the bail order, observing that the high court had delved into the evidence and conducted a “mini trial” at the bail stage. It remanded the case back to the high court for a fresh decision.
At this point, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Kumar, requested the apex court to fix a specific date for the high court to decide the matter. He argued that delays in high courts could prejudice his client, who remains incarcerated.
The request was strongly opposed by senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for a key witness, who highlighted the overwhelming workload at the Allahabad high court. “Each bench of the high court has at least 200 cases listed daily. Judges there are already overburdened,” Dave argued.
Responding to these concerns, the Supreme Court acknowledged the constraints high courts face. “They are doing their best. It is not that they are not doing anything. They have their own constraints, and all stakeholders must realise it,” noted the bench.
Also read: Collegium recommends elevation of Justice Manmohan as Supreme Court judge
While the court agreed to add in its order that the high court should consider the matter “as early as possible”, it turned down Luthra’s plea to set a fixed timeline, stating: “We must not fix that kind of timeline. They are also constitutional courts.”
Finally, the bench said that the matter be considered expeditiously without imposing a rigid timeline, aiming to strike a balance between judicial efficiency and the independence of the constitutional courts.
The challenges facing the Allahabad high court are stark. With a sanctioned strength of 160 judges, the court is short by 78 judges. It is grappling with a pendency of 837,000 cases, according to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).
Of these, 67% of civil cases have been pending for over a decade, while 33% of criminal cases are also awaiting resolution for at least 10 years. This backlog underscores the systemic burden on the judiciary, particularly in one of India’s largest high courts.
The present petition before the bench assailed the high court’s bail order for Kumar that had noted several inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the prosecution. The FIR, registered on the same day as the murder of Anuj Chaudhary on August 10, 2023, in Moradabad, implicated Kumar along with others. However, the high court observed that subsequent witness statements emerged after significant delays, raising questions about their reliability.
The high court also highlighted the lack of direct evidence linking Kumar to the crime, attributing his role to being “near the scene”, citing the prosecution’s failure to establish critical facts, such as a money trail, to substantiate claims of the murder being a “contract killing”.
The Supreme Court bench came down hard on the high court order, stating that such an order was legally untenable because it virtually “acquitted” the accused by assessing the evidence in the case. “This order cannot stand even for a second. What is left to be decided in the trial? The high court seems to have conducted a mini trial and acquitted the accused. This order will have to be set aside,” said the bench, striking down the bail order and remitting the matter back to the high court to pass a suitable order within the bounds of law.