Supreme Court’s frustration with lenient rejection of bail applications is starting to show

This means that only those deemed “acceptable” by the Union government do so. Even colleges are by the Union government.

Judges are human beings, not robots. They act according to the incentives that the institution gives them. When judges feel that they owe their position to the Union government, not to the judiciary, they act accordingly. When trial court judges are judged by Supreme Court judges who feel that it is their duty to please the Union government, they do the same.

The second, long-term consequence was the loss of the Supreme Court’s authority over the judiciary, even in court cases. If the Supreme Court does not respect its own rulings enough to defend itself, other courts will follow suit. Playing it safe has no consequences for judges.

There was no reason to deny bail to Manish Sisodia. By granting it now (months later), the Supreme Court has at least now woken up to the systemic consequences of its actions. The court should now act, not only more liberally in granting bail, but also in asserting its constitutional authority as the highest judicial authority.

All the admonitions and contempt for court action will have little impact if the court does not show that it takes its own orders seriously. After all, as Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones said, “Any man who has to say ‘I am King’ is no true King.”

(Alok Prasanna Kumar is a senior resident at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Bengaluru. He is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed herein are the author’s own. Quint does not endorse them and is not responsible for them.)