By IANS
New Delhi : In an unconventional ruling, the Supreme Court has recommended to the Uttar Pradesh government to restore a law for anticipatory bail, repealed by the state in 1976.
“I make a strong recommendation to the Uttar Pradesh government to immediately issue an ordinance to restore the provisions for anticipatory bail and empower the Allahabad High court as well as the sessions courts in the state to grant anticipatory bail,” said Justice Markandey Katju.
The ruling was delivered Tuesday but was released Wednesday. It is unconventional in many ways.
To begin with, the direction was given during hearing on a criminal case related to Karnataka, which has no connection with Uttar Pradesh.
Secondly, Justice Katju gave a separate ruling specifically to issue the directions to Uttar Pradesh to restore the law on anticipatory bail, while Justice H.K. Sema, who headed the bench hearing the matter, gave the main ruling that was confined to the facts of the case.
Justice Katju wholly concurred with Justice Sema’s ruling.
The law for the anticipatory bail is meant for those people against whom no case might have been registered but who apprehend their imminent arrest after being accused of some crime.
“The secretary general of this court shall send a copy of my judgement to the chief secretary, home secretary and law secretary of Uttar Pradesh and other states as well as to the registrar general of the Allahabed High Court,” Justice Katju ordered in his ruling, seeking “strict compliance” of it.
Justice Katju sought enactment of a law by a state legislature despite judicial refrain that the judiciary should respect the principle of power of separation among the other organs of the state.
Justice Katju himself, in a ruling on Dec 6, had decried what he termed “judicial activism” and had cautioned the judiciary against encroaching upon the domains of the legislature and the executive.
Bearing the principle in mind, Justice Katju said: “The court cannot amend an act of the legislature. No doubt the recommendation of a court is not binding on the state government or legislature, but still it should be seriously considered and not simply ignored.”
“The court usually makes a recommendation when it feels that the public is facing some hardships. Such recommendations should, therefore, be given respect and serious consideration,” he added.
Justice Katju said, “It is surprising that the provision for anticipatory bail has been deleted in Uttar Pradesh. Although it exists in all other states in India, even in terrorist affected states. I do not understand why this provision should not exist on Uttar Pradesh as well.”
“Because of absence of this provision, thousands of petitions are being filed in the Allahabad High Court, praying for the stay on arrest of the petitioner,” he said.
He added: “This is unnecessarily increasing the work load of the high court, besides the hardship of the public and the problem of the overcrowding in jails.”