How does the Supreme Court's intervention in bail matters affect the balance between judicial discretion and individual rights?

The Supreme Court of India plays a crucial role in interpreting laws and safeguarding the rights of individuals, especially in criminal justice matters like bail. Its interventions in bail cases can have significant implications on the balance between the discretionary powers of lower courts and the fundamental rights of the accused.

• Judicial Discretion:
  • Bail decisions are typically left to the discretion of trial courts and High Courts, which assess facts, evidence, and the risk factors involved in each case.
  • Supreme Court interventions, especially when they set strict precedents or forbid bail in specific situations (such as digital arrest cases), may limit the flexibility and independence of lower courts in exercising their discretion.
  • Such interventions can lead to a more uniform approach, but may also result in rigidity, where unique facts of individual cases are overlooked.
• Individual Rights:
  • The right to seek bail is closely linked to the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • When the Supreme Court imposes restrictions or forbids bail in certain cases, it can potentially curtail the accused’s ability to secure release pending trial, impacting their liberty.
  • However, the Supreme Court also intervenes to ensure that bail is not granted arbitrarily or in cases where public interest and justice might be compromised, such as in cases involving serious offences or misuse of digital platforms.
• Balancing Act:
  • The Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the process of granting or denying bail is just, fair, and not misused either by the accused or by authorities.
  • Its interventions seek to set benchmarks for lower courts, but excessive interference can undermine judicial discretion and delay justice for individuals.
  • Ultimately, the balance depends on how the Supreme Court interprets the facts of each case and upholds both the authority of the judiciary and the rights of the individual.