Recently, in a pointed judicial response to administrative delay in enforcing a Supreme Court order, the Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan questioned the conduct of Uttar Pradesh prison authorities for withholding the release of an undertrial on the basis of what the Court described as a trivial omission. The Bench examined the enquiry report submitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, and expressed concerns over the attempt to shift responsibility onto a judicial officer who had merely implemented the Apex Court’s bail order.
The Case arose from the prolonged detention of Aftab, an undertrial booked under the Uttar Pradesh Unlawful Religious Conversions Prohibition Act. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court granted him bail, however, prison authorities declined to release him on the grounds that the order mentioned only Section 5, instead of Section 5(i), despite all other particulars being correctly reflected. In June, the Court reprimanded the authorities for the delay and awarded an interim compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the undertrial, while directing an inquiry to be conducted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad.
During the hearing, the Bench sought clarity on why responsibility for the delayed release had been assigned solely to the Additional District and Sessions Judge who executed the release order. The Court pressed the State’s law officer to explain how a judicial officer could be faulted for a delay that arose despite a clear direction issued by the Supreme Court itself.
The Court further noted that the detainee remained in custody for nearly a month due to what was described as a minor omission in the bail order, and questioned why such a clerical issue took 28 days to resolve when all other particulars of the case were unmistakably clear.
Responding to the Bench, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati stated that the matter was ultimately settled only when the accused sought a modification of the bail order, adding that either side could have flagged the omission earlier.
The Bench expressed strong disapproval of the explanation offered by the State. He observed that the situation reflected an attitude in which the Executive appeared to place itself above judicial directions. He cautioned that when a bail order issued by the Supreme Court clearly identifies the accused, the offences involved, and all necessary case particulars, authorities cannot refuse compliance by pointing to a minor omission. He further noted that allowing such conduct would effectively permit the administration to disregard judicial mandates on the basis of insubstantial or flimsy objections.
The Bench reiterated that "We feel that instead of the Director General/Deputy Inspector General of Police (Prisons) conducting the enquiry in this case it should be conducted by a Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The enquiry will focus on the reason behind the delay in enlarging the applicant/petitioner from prison and as to why he was detained beyond 27.05.2025. The reasons given by the State is the non mentioning of sub-section (1) of Section 5. Is that the real reason or was there something sinister will Independently, also the be Principal enquired District into. and Sessions Judge will also enquire as to whether there was any gross negligence on the part of the Prison Authorities or other officials in this episode and if there are any Officers who are responsible.”
The Court also stated, “the officer Sri Junaid Muzaffar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad is solely accountable for the delay occurring in release of the accused Aftab and he did not act with full care and attention having regard to the gravity and nature of the case. Thus, the officer has been responsible for the release of the accused after an inordinate delay.”
The Court observed, “We have taken the lapse very seriously. When an order is passed by the Highest Court and that too the first Court, that is the Court presided over by the Chief Justice of India, it is not proper at all for the authorities to pick up trivial omissions in the order and understand the same in their own manner.”
The Registry has been directed to call for the judicial officer’s comments and place them before the Court, along with the full enquiry record. The matter will next be listed on December 8.
Case Title: Aftab Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Case No.: Miscellaneous Application No. 1086/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2295/2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K V Viswanathan
Advocate for the Petitioner: Advs. Abhishek Singh, Sandeep Kumar, Yavi Yaduvanshi, Akash Singh, Satyendra Kumar Tiwari, Kritika Saraswat, and AOR Manju Jetley
Advocate for Respondent: A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Dr. Vijendra Singh, Advs. Apurva Singh, Sunit Chaudhary, Virender
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
