Many within judiciary deny bail even in deserving cases: SC Judge
text_fields
New Delhi: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan of the Supreme Court of India, remarked on Sunday (March 22) that some members of the judiciary tend to act in a “more loyal than the king” manner, often denying bail even in cases where it may be justified. According to him, this approach leads to individuals remaining in jail for extended periods.
Speaking at the Supreme Court Bar Association National Conference 2026 on the theme “The Role of Judiciary in Viksit Bharat”, Bhuyan acknowledged that such a mindset persists within sections of the judiciary, resulting in people languishing in prison for months.
He also pointed to what he described as a growing pattern of indiscriminate filing of FIRs in trivial matters. Bhuyan noted that cases are being registered for minor issues such as protests, student agitations, and even social media posts or memes.
He added that these cases often reach the apex court, which is then compelled to form special investigation teams, thereby consuming significant judicial time, The Wore reported.
The judge further raised concerns about the extensive use of laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Referring to data as of March 31, 2025, he highlighted that more than 7000 enforcement cases had been registered under PMLA, with over a thousand arrests, but trials had concluded in only a small number of cases. He questioned the justification for prolonged incarceration in such situations, especially when the maximum punishment is seven years.
Describing UAPA as a stringent law, Bhuyan cited government data showing consistently low conviction rates over recent years, generally hovering around 4%.
He suggested that this trend could indicate excessive use of the law, noting that a large number of those arrested were ultimately not convicted. This, he said, raises concerns about premature arrests, insufficient evidence, and the resulting burden on courts, as well as broader issues relating to personal liberty.
Bhuyan argued that when conviction rates remain below 5%, it is difficult to justify keeping accused persons in jail for years without charges being framed or chargesheets being filed. He emphasised that such practices are incompatible with the vision of a developed India.
He also stressed that a progressive society should allow greater room for dissent and debate, cautioning against the criminalisation of differing opinions and calling for increased tolerance of diverse and critical viewpoints.