Dr Pandey contends that the lack of systematic review of bail denials exacerbates the crisis and places undue pressure on higher courts

Senior Supreme Court advocate Dr Ajay Kummar Pandey has written to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant seeking structural reforms to India’s bail adjudication system, including the introduction of a mandatory institutional review mechanism for bail denials. The proposal comes amid growing concern over the country’s rising under-trial population and calls for greater accountability and consistency in bail decisions.
 

In a formal communication sent on 20 February, and copied to the Prime Minister, senior Union ministers and key judicial bodies, Dr Pandey argued that India’s current bail framework creates an “inverted incentive structure”, where judges who grant bail often face scrutiny while those who deny it are rarely reviewed. He said this imbalance undermines constitutional protections and contributes to prolonged incarceration of under-trial prisoners.

According to the letter, India currently has around 5.5 lakh under-trial prisoners, accounting for nearly 76 per cent of the total prison population. Dr Pandey contended that the lack of systematic review of bail denials exacerbates the crisis and places undue pressure on higher courts. He noted that approximately 70,000 bail applications reach the Supreme Court each year, many of which could have been resolved at lower judicial levels if proper safeguards were in place.
 

The advocate cited remarks by former Chief Justice of India Dr D.Y. Chandrachud acknowledging that fear of institutional scrutiny sometimes discourages judges from granting bail, prompting them to leave decisions to appellate courts instead. Dr Pandey said such dynamics weaken the constitutional principle that personal liberty must remain the norm rather than the exception.
 

In his letter, Dr Pandey also welcomed recent initiatives undertaken by the Supreme Court to address judicial backlogs and bail-related delays. These include the appointment of retired judges as ad hoc judges in the Allahabad High Court under Article 224A, directions issued to High Courts to submit pendency data on bail matters, and recent judicial observations in the case of Sunny Chauhan vs State of Haryana, which emphasised the need for swift consideration of bail pleas.
 

As part of his reform proposals, Dr Pandey outlined a five-point framework aimed at improving transparency and consistency in bail decisions. The first recommendation calls for automatic institutional review of bail denial orders after a specified period of custody — 60 days for offences punishable up to seven years and 90 days for more serious offences. He argued that such reviews would prevent unnecessary detention and encourage timely reconsideration of liberty claims.
 

The second proposal advocates quarterly audits by High Courts to monitor patterns in bail decisions and ensure that constitutional safeguards are being applied uniformly. A third measure suggests the creation of dedicated fast-track bail benches to handle urgent applications, particularly for vulnerable individuals and prisoners who have exceeded statutory custody limits.
 

Dr Pandey also proposed institutional safeguards to protect judicial officers who grant bail in accordance with established legal principles, warning that fear of disciplinary scrutiny may otherwise discourage constitutionally sound decisions. The fifth recommendation calls for the formation of a national committee on bail reform under the supervision of the Supreme Court to study denial trends, frame uniform guidelines and periodically review progress.
 

The proposals draw on Articles 14, 21 and 39A of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law, protection of life and personal liberty, and access to justice. Dr Pandey referenced several landmark Supreme Court judgments — including Hussainara Khatoon, Gudikanti Narasimhulu, Satender Kumar Antil, Prem Prakash vs Union of India (2024) and Jalaluddin Khan vs Union of India (2024) — which reaffirm the long-standing legal principle that bail should be the rule rather than the exception.
 

In a statement accompanying the letter, Dr Pandey said the under-trial crisis requires “deliberate institutional reform”, adding that the justice system must ensure that adherence to constitutional values does not expose judges to unnecessary risk. The proposals are expected to add to ongoing debates within legal and policy circles on how to balance judicial accountability with the protection of individual liberty.