DC Edit | Courts must not delay bail cases

Article 21 of the Constitution which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law is the guarantee of personal liberty against the possible excesses of the state. The Supreme Court being the custodian of the fundamental rights has interpreted the Article that guarantees protection of life and personal liberty and expanded its scope to hold that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. It has time and again told the courts across the country not to feel cagey about ensuring personal liberty or granting bail; they should exercise the right instead of dumping the job on the apex court.

The sad part of the story is that lower courts often refuse to intervene and ensure that personal liberty is curtailed only as per the law even when the executive makes it a point to wreak vengeance on its citizens and make the legal process the punishment. The exhortation made by the Supreme Court the other day that courts should not post hearing of bail applications at a “long date” is the latest in that series. The court, while setting the bail hearing of a person who sought liberty for the surgery of his daughter from a date several months later to an earlier date, also expressed the hope that the high courts will “at least give some weightage to our request”.

It is a paradox that the highest court of the land often comes out as a helpless institution when fundamental rights are trampled by the State while the judiciary, including the constitutional courts, looks the other way. It cannot be the case that only judges sitting in the apex court know the importance of personal liberty in our Constitution. There must be a system through which this failure of the lower courts to protect it is brought to the notice of the Supreme Court and the judicial officers being made accountable for their lapses. If the Supreme Court thinks so highly of liberty, it must also put in place a foolproof system to uphold it.