'Unsubstantiated': Former CJI Chandrachud rejects claims of bail case bias in Supreme Court

He reiterated the principle that “bail should ordinarily be the rule, jail the exception” but emphasised that judges must also weigh societal concerns.

Former Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, on Wednesday, dismissed allegations that he deliberately routed bail cases to Justice Bela Trivedi, who was perceived as less inclined to grant relief. He termed the charge “unsubstantiated” and “contrary to the record,” stressing that case allocation in the Supreme Court is done randomly through a computer system.

The former CJI was speaking at the India Today Conclave in Mumbai.

“Your assessment that all cases of bail were assigned to Justice Bela Trivedi is factually incorrect,” he said. “Cases involving bail are dealt with by every single bench… criminal cases form the largest inflow into the Supreme Court, and they are allotted randomly.”

Justice Chandrachud underlined that “every single individual who deserved bail got bail” during his tenure, citing the example of Congress leader Pawan Khera, who was arrested in February 2023 by the Assam Police. The top court had stepped in the same day, granting interim bail and later extending protection. “Who protected him? The Supreme Court protected him,” Chandrachud noted.

He reiterated the principle that “bail should ordinarily be the rule, jail the exception” but emphasised that judges must also weigh societal concerns, “You don’t want our streets, you don’t want our communities to be unsafe for individuals… the work of a judge is not simple by any means because you’re drawing this balance from case to case.”

Chandrachud, also discussing trolling and judicial independence, admitted that “good people don’t want to get into the judiciary anymore” because of “intense social media scrutiny” and trolling. “Many segments of the polity want to bend the independence of the court to secure favourable outcomes,” he warned.

He also rejected claims of unequal access to justice, citing a case where the Supreme Court freed a poor Muslim man who had spent 18 years in jail for electricity theft without challenging his conviction due to poverty. “Even though this is a solitary voice… this person must have a voice in the system,” he said.

Chandrachud also referenced his bulldozer demolition judgment, which held that the state must follow due process before demolishing homes.

“We are free citizens of a free nation, you are entitled to your freedom of speech and expression,” he concluded. “But let’s not tarnish the system on the basis of unsubstantiated facts.”