Supreme Court Holds Magistrate in Contempt for Routines Violating High Court Orders

Judicial Magistrate guilty of contempt for flouting its interim anticipatory bail order and granting unwarranted police remand. The judgment, delivered by Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, underscores that courts must not merely act as messengers for investigating agencies but must apply their judicial mind to remand applications.

The case in question involved a Gujarat-based individual who was arrested and remanded despite an interim bail order from the Supreme Court. The Court’s decision marks a stern rebuke to judicial and police authorities who neglect Supreme Court directives, emphasizing that remands should not be routinely granted.

The Court clarified that judicial officers must rigorously assess whether police custody is genuinely necessary before granting remand. “Criminal jurisprudence requires that before exercising the power to grant police custody remand, the Courts must apply judicial mind to the facts of the case,” the judgment read. It added that “The Courts are not expected to act as messengers of the investigating agencies and the remand applications should not be allowed in a routine manner.”

This judgment builds upon prior cases such as Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 223, where the Court had ruled that the state must present a robust justification for custodial investigation beyond mere assertions.

The controversy began when police filed a remand application despite the Supreme Court’s interim bail order. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deepaben Sanjaykumar Thakar, was found guilty of contempt for not adhering to the Supreme Court's order. Alongside, Police Inspector R.Y. Raval was also held guilty.

The Court dismissed the Magistrate's defense, which cited a local practice allowing police remand applications following anticipatory bail. It stated that this explanation was “neither convincing nor tenable” as the anticipatory bail order was clear and did not imply that remand could be sought.

The judgment highlighted a significant lapse: the accused was detained beyond the remand period, which ended on December 16, 2023. The detention continued until December 18, 2023, when the accused was finally released on bail. The Court labeled this continued detention as unconstitutional and a violation of Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the Court criticized the Magistrate’s indifference towards the petitioner’s complaint of custodial torture, a matter that was brushed aside rather than addressed with due diligence.

The Supreme Court has ordered the contemnors to appear before it on September 2, 2024, to determine their sentencing. This case reaffirms the necessity for judicial officers to uphold the rule of law and the Supreme Court's orders, ensuring that their decisions are grounded in genuine judicial reasoning rather than routine practices or procedural lapses.