Netas can’t play police, judge or administrator: Supreme Court in Sena corporator-doctors assault case

In a surprising turn of events, a trial judge in India found himself in hot water for offering unsolicited legal advice to the Supreme Court. The judge, an additional district and sessions judge at Barasat, wrote a letter to the apex court on August 11, requesting an extension of time to conclude a lengthy trial.

The case involved an accused individual from West Bengal who had been an undertrial prisoner for five years. The Supreme Court, in its May order, had directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and complete the case within three months, noting that the accused had languished in jail for an extended period.

However, the trial court failed to adhere to the court's order and subsequently, the judge penned a letter to the Supreme Court seeking further time to wrap up the trial. In this letter, the judge offered his opinions on how the court should decide bail matters, which the court found inappropriate and disturbing.

Upon reading the letter, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran expressed shock and directed its registry to seek an explanation from the judge. The court emphasized that it was not for the presiding officer to give advice on when to grant or deny bail. The judge's comments on bail jurisprudence were deemed unacceptable and prompted the Supreme Court to request a thorough explanation from the trial judge.