SC bench to hear if litigant should first approach sessions court for anticipatory bail
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday referred to a three-judge bench the issue whether it is the "choice of the party" to move high courts for anticipatory bail or was it mandatory for litigants to first approach a sessions court.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the matter be posted for hearing as and when the three-judge bench is constituted.
"This matter requires to be heard by a three-judge bench," the bench said.
The apex court had earlier appointed senior advocate Siddharth Luthra as an amicus curiae for assistance in the matter.
The top court on September 8 had taken note of the Kerala High Court's "regular practice" of entertaining anticipatory bail applications directly without the litigant moving the sessions court.
"One issue which in bothering us is, in the Kerala High Court there seems to be a regular practice that the high court entertains the anticipatory bail applications directly without the litigant approaching the sessions court. Why is that so?" the bench had asked.
It had said there was a hierarchy provided in the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Section 482 of the BNSS deals with direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
"It doesn't happen in any other state. Only in the Kerala High Court, we have noticed that regularly applications (for anticipatory bail) are being directly entertained," the bench had observed.
The top court's observation came while hearing a plea by two men challenging a Kerala High Court order rejecting their plea for anticipatory bail.
The bench noted in the case, the petitioners directly moved the high court for the relief without first going to the sessions court.
The high court was observed to have entertained such applications directly without the applicant approaching the sessions court that might result in proper facts not being placed on record which otherwise would have come before the sessions court.
"We are inclined to consider this aspect and decide the issue as to whether the option to approach the high court would be at the choice of the party or it should be mandatory that the accused should first approach the sessions court," the bench added.
It had issued notice on this aspect to the Kerala High Court, through its registrar general.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
