In a significant move, the Indian Supreme Court has mandated a week-long “special judicial training” for two judges from Delhi’s Karkardooma courts. This directive comes after the apex court severely criticized their handling of a ₹1.9-crore cheating case, where bail was granted in what the Supreme Court described as a “perverse” manner. A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti concluded that the judges had deliberately overlooked binding legal precedents and crucial facts while releasing the accused.
The controversial ruling originated from a case against Dharam Pal Singh Rathore and his wife, Shiksha Rathore. They were implicated in defrauding Netsity Systems Private Limited through a deceptive land transaction. Previously, the Delhi High Court had denied them anticipatory bail, strongly rebuking the couple for misleading the court and providing false assurances. Despite this, the Rathores managed to secure bail from an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) in November 2023 and, later, from a sessions judge in August 2024.
The Supreme Court bench expressed its grave concern, stating, “We would be failing in our duty if we turned a blind eye to the manner in which the ACMM granted bail to the accused and the sessions judge refused to interfere… Given these facts, we deem it appropriate that the judicial officers shall undergo special judicial training for a period of at least seven days.”
The Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court has now been tasked with organizing this specialized program at the Delhi Judicial Academy. The training will focus on emphasizing the binding authority of superior court judgments and the imperative need for a thorough evaluation of an accused’s conduct during bail proceedings. Furthermore, the Judicial Education and Training Programme Committee chairperson has been instructed to integrate these vital aspects into all future training modules.
Serious Lapses Uncovered
The Supreme Court’s reprimand wasn’t limited to the judicial officers. It also directed the Delhi Police Commissioner to conduct a personal inquiry into the actions of the investigating officers (IOs). These officers had significantly downplayed the necessity for custodial interrogation, a stance the Bench deemed a “serious lapse.” The court highlighted that the IOs’ approach in the bail proceedings “spoke volumes” and ordered the Commissioner to take swift and appropriate disciplinary action.
In a sharp critique, the Supreme Court deemed the ACMM’s rationale for granting bail to be “bordering on perversity.” The court pointed out that the magistrate disregarded the Delhi High Court’s adverse findings from February 2023, which clearly documented the accused’s history of false undertakings and involvement in previous cheating cases. Instead, the magistrate incorrectly assumed that simply filing a charge sheet negated the need for custody. The sessions judge further compounded this error by focusing solely on the accused’s post-bail conduct, rather than critically examining the legality of the magistrate’s initial order.
Emphasizing that bail decisions must be grounded in concrete facts and the accused’s behavior, rather than routine or superficial reasoning, the court affirmed, “Bail matters are primarily to be adjudicated on the facts and circumstances, before applying any principle of law. In light of the glaring factual matrix, bail ought not to have been granted.”
Egregious Procedural Failures
The court also brought to light several procedural irregularities. It noted that when the couple initially presented themselves before the ACMM in October 2023 to seek bail, they were technically in judicial custody, yet no interim release order was issued. Astonishingly, they remained free until bail was formally granted in November 2023, only after they furnished bonds of ₹3 lakh each. The Bench remarked with disbelief, “We are unable to comprehend how, having formally surrendered before the court, the accused were permitted to leave the court without any formal order of release.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that the Delhi High Court made an error by treating the matter as a simple bail cancellation case. The High Court, it stated, should have thoroughly considered the accused’s past conduct and all relevant surrounding facts before upholding the bail orders in November 2024. “We are also constrained to observe that the High Court ought to have appreciated the background facts and not treated the matter merely as one seeking setting aside of/cancellation of bail simpliciter,” the Supreme Court asserted.
Consequently, the Supreme Court overturned the bail orders issued by the ACMM, the sessions judge, and the Delhi High Court. The bail granted to the couple was cancelled, and they have been directed to surrender within two weeks.
The Bench underscored that its ruling does not intend to undermine the fundamental principles of liberty but rather highlights that such principles must be meticulously applied to the specific facts of each individual case, as “no precedent operates in a vacuum.”