The Supreme Court of India on Monday delivered a strong rebuke to the Odisha High Court and the state’s subordinate judiciary, condemning the imposition of what it described as “odious,” “perverse,” and degrading bail conditions, including directives requiring Dalits and Adivasis to clean police stations as a prerequisite for release.
Acting on its own motion, the court expressed deep disappointment and concern over such judicial orders, stating that they undermined the dignity of accused persons and were rooted in an implicit presumption of guilt. The bench made it clear that these conditions were unconstitutional in nature and fundamentally incompatible with the principles of justice and fairness.
Declaring all such bail conditions null, void, and legally unenforceable, the court ordered their immediate removal and prohibited courts from imposing any similar conditions in the future. It also directed that all affected accused persons be granted bail without being subjected to such requirements.
The apex court further instructed its registry to circulate the ruling to all High Courts across the country, ensuring that subordinate courts refrain from adopting such practices under any circumstances. The Registrar General of the Odisha High Court has been directed to submit a compliance report within four weeks, confirming adherence to the order.
The Chief Justice noted that the court took suo motu cognisance promptly upon learning of the issue, observing that such caste-based conditions damage the credibility of judicial institutions and are unacceptable in a constitutional democracy more than 75 years after independence.
The controversy originated from protests linked to land acquisition for bauxite mining involving the Vedanta Group, during which several individuals from Dalit and Adivasi communities were arrested. While some were granted bail, certain orders imposed the unusual condition of cleaning police stations for a fixed period.
The court clarified that its intervention was limited to examining the legality and propriety of the bail conditions, not the underlying criminal allegations or land dispute. It noted that similar orders had been issued by courts in places such as Rayagada and had been followed by other subordinate courts, indicating a troubling pattern.
During proceedings, counsel for the accused highlighted that such conditions were selectively imposed and not applied to individuals from more privileged backgrounds. The court acknowledged that these concerns appeared credible and warranted serious consideration.
Reinforcing constitutional safeguards, the bench referred to key provisions guaranteeing equality and prohibiting discrimination and untouchability, emphasising that the judiciary bears the responsibility of upholding these rights. It stressed that equality under the Constitution remains a central guarantee and must not be compromised under any circumstances.
