Inconsistent Judicial Orders Can Result In Unequal Treatment Of Similarly Placed Individuals: Allahabad HC
While allowing an application for anticipatory bail, the Allahabad High Court has opined that inconsistent judicial orders can lead to discrimination among accused persons, especially when the facts and circumstances are similar or identical.
The Court further held that such inconsistent orders undermine the public's perception of the judicial system's fairness and integrity.
The Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal observed, “The judicial system rests on the faith of the citizens. Citizens and litigants expect to be subjected to judicial orders that follow the law and fair procedure. Inconsistent judicial orders can lead to discrimination among accused persons, especially when the facts and circumstances are similar or identical. An officer practicing discrimination in judicial acts commits gross misconduct. Faith in the judiciary is the cornerstone of a democratic society. When citizens bring their grievances to court, they trust that the judiciary will uphold justice impartially and consistently. This trust is eroded when judicial orders are inconsistent, creating an appearance of partiality or bias. Inconsistent orders can result in unequal treatment of similarly situated individuals, violating the principle of equality before the law enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India. Such discrimination not only harms the individuals directly affected, but also, undermines the public's perception of the judicial system's fairness and integrity.”
Advocate Sandeep Kumar Pandey appeared for the Applicant whereas AGA RP Patel appeared for the State.
In the present case, the trial court rejected the anticipatory bail of the Applicant although twenty days prior allowed application for anticipatory bail to a co-accused. The Applicant herein was not even named in the FIR registered and the evidence against the applicant Abhishek Yadav was at par with the co-accused who like the applicant was not named in the FIR. Therefore, the Applicant filed an anticipatory bail application in a case arising out of Sections 147, 323, 336, 308, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court perused the chronology of inconsistent bail orders passed by the trial court and held, “It is settled principle of law that the judicial pronouncements should be consistent. The issue of consistency in judicial proceedings is directly related to fairness and impartial procedure. The fairness of the judicial proceedings is pivotal for the faith of the litigants. The criminal proceedings come up challenging the state action, for protecting the liberty of an individual. The liberty of an individual is sacrosanct in view of Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the liberty of an individual is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution, it is necessary that the courts do not subject the litigants to inconsistent orders.”
The Court also referred to the expression “inconsistent” from the Black's Law Dictionary which means lacking consistency; not compatible with. In other words, the orders so passed by the courts must be compatible with its previous orders in the very same matter, the Court said.
The Court concluded, “Relying on its judgement passed in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar11, the Supreme Court in Md. Asfak Alam Vs. State of Jharkhand and another12, has stated that once the charge-sheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course. However, the court did not do so but mechanically rejected and, virtually, to rub salt in the wound directed the appellant to surrender and seek regular bail before the trial court. Thus, the High Court fell into error in adopting such a casual approach.”
The Court opined that it is gross misconduct by a judicial officer, manifesting as discriminatory practices in judicial acts, is a serious breach of duty and it contravenes the ethical standards expected of the judiciary and damages the foundational principles of justice. Ensuring consistency in judicial decisions is crucial for preserving the credibility of the legal system and maintaining public confidence in its processes, it said.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application for the anticipatory bail to the Applicant herein.
Cause Title: Abhishek Yadav@Laloo v. State of U.P.
Appearances:
Applicant: Advocate Sandeep Kumar Pandey
Opposite Party: AGA RP Patel