High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan v. The State of Rajasthan
Background
During the COVID-19 lockdown, a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court passed two orders, one in March 2020 and one in May 2021, that went beyond deciding the individual bail applications before him. He issued blanket directions telling the High Court Registry not to list bail applications, suspension-of-sentence applications, and certain appeals as "extremely urgent," and separately directed police not to arrest persons facing offences carrying up to three years' imprisonment. The High Court itself, as an institution, appealed these orders to the Supreme Court, arguing the Single Judge had overstepped his authority.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that by the time the appeal was heard, both underlying bail applications had already been rejected, technically making the appeals infructuous. However, the Court chose to rule on the legality of the orders anyway because they contained sweeping, "in rem" directions affecting people far beyond the two applicants, and touched on the fundamental right to apply for bail under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court held that deciding which cases are "extremely urgent" and fixing the court roster is an administrative power belonging to the Chief Justice of a High Court, not something an individual judge can assume on his own; and that a blanket ban on listing bail applications effectively suspends statutory and constitutional rights without due process. The appeals were allowed on this basis, even though no further relief was needed since the bail pleas were already decided.
Lesson Learnt
Even during an emergency like a pandemic, no single judge can issue blanket orders restricting an entire category of litigants' access to bail or suspension-of-sentence applications: the right to seek bail is an individual, case-by-case right rooted in personal liberty, and courts must assess urgency case by case rather than by a sweeping ban.