In a path-breaking judgment aimed at strengthening access to justice, the Supreme Court of India has directed that the government will pay the bail surety of poor under-trial prisoners who are unable to furnish the amount required for their release. The Court held that poverty cannot be a ground for continued incarceration, reaffirming the constitutional promise of liberty and equality before law.
This ruling marks a significant shift in India’s criminal justice landscape, where thousands of under-trials remain behind bars simply because they cannot afford bail.
What the Supreme Court Said
A Bench led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that despite bail being granted, the poor and marginalized often remain in custody for months or even years due to their inability to arrange surety or deposit bonds.
To address this systemic failure, the Court directed that the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) — under the supervision of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) — will step in to facilitate and finance bail surety for such prisoners. The financial liability for this will be borne by the State or Central Government, depending on jurisdiction.
The Bench remarked:
“Liberty cannot depend on the size of one’s wallet. The purpose of bail is to secure appearance in trial, not to punish poverty.”
The order has been welcomed by legal experts as one of the most humane interventions of recent times.
The Context: India’s Under-trial Crisis
India’s prisons are heavily overcrowded, and a majority of inmates are under-trials — people awaiting trial who have not been convicted. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), over 77% of India’s prison population consists of under-trial prisoners.
Many of them are charged with petty or bailable offences but remain in jail because they cannot afford surety amounts as low as ₹5,000–₹10,000.
This creates a paradoxical situation: while the courts uphold the principle of “bail, not jail,” the poor continue to suffer indefinite detention because of economic barriers. The Supreme Court’s latest decision directly targets this inequality.
How the New Mechanism Will Work
Under the new direction:
- The court granting bail will notify the District Legal Services Authority if the accused expresses inability to provide surety.
- The DLSA will then verify the accused’s financial status through a brief assessment.
- If found eligible, the State Government (through the legal services mechanism) will deposit or guarantee the bail amount on behalf of the under-trial.
- The DLSA will also ensure that the accused is made aware of all court dates and conditions, ensuring appearance in proceedings.
This system essentially replaces private sureties with state-backed institutional sureties, ensuring that no one remains in jail merely for being poor.
Why This Matters: Bridging Economic Inequality in Justice
The bail process in India has long been criticized for discriminating against the poor. Wealthier accused persons can secure liberty immediately, while those from marginalized backgrounds remain imprisoned — even for minor offences.
By transferring surety responsibility to the government, the Supreme Court has addressed one of the most invisible forms of inequality in criminal justice.
Legal scholar and senior advocate Indira Jaising called it a “constitutional correction”, stating that the right to liberty cannot be contingent on economic means.
This order also aligns with India’s constitutional values under Articles 14, 19, 21, which guarantee equality, personal liberty, and protection of life. It resonates with past judicial pronouncements such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), where the Supreme Court had recognized the plight of under-trial prisoners as a human rights crisis.
Earlier Judicial Observations on Bail and Poverty
The latest ruling builds upon a long line of Supreme Court judgments emphasizing bail reforms:
- Moti Ram v. State of M.P. (1978) – Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that bail conditions should not be so harsh as to make them impossible for the poor to comply with.
- Hussainara Khatoon (1979) – The Court recognized speedy trial and fair bail as part of fundamental rights under Article 21.
- Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) – The Court urged lower courts to apply the principle of “bail is the rule, jail the exception” and to adopt a liberal approach for under-trials.
This new directive effectively operationalizes these principles by introducing financial support mechanisms for those who need it most.
Role of Legal Services Authorities
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to provide free legal aid to the poor and marginalized. However, its reach has often been limited to legal representation.
By assigning DLSA and NALSA a direct role in financing bail sureties, the Supreme Court has expanded the functional scope of legal aid in India.
This move also underscores the integration between judicial reform and welfare policy — the court has made it clear that ensuring liberty is not only a judicial duty but also a state responsibility.
Potential Challenges in Implementation
While the decision has been hailed as progressive, experts caution that effective implementation will be key.
Some challenges include:
- Verification Delays: Ensuring timely assessment of indigency without bureaucratic hurdles.
- Budgetary Allocation: States must allocate sufficient funds for DLSAs to handle surety deposits.
- Awareness: Many under-trials may not even know they can request such support.
- Coordination: Seamless coordination between prisons, courts, and DLSA offices will be essential.
If executed efficiently, however, this reform can drastically reduce prison overcrowding and ensure that detention is based only on legal grounds, not financial incapacity.
Impact on Prison Overcrowding and Human Rights
According to NCRB data (2023), India’s jails operate at over 130% of their capacity. Reducing the number of under-trial prisoners by even 10% could significantly ease overcrowding and improve conditions.
The move also strengthens India’s compliance with international human rights obligations, including Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary detention.
The Supreme Court’s emphasis on state accountability also reinforces the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules).
What Happens Next
The Court has asked NALSA to submit an implementation roadmap within three months, detailing:
- Criteria for identifying eligible under-trials.
- The mechanism for fund disbursal and recovery (if required).
- A periodic review system to monitor compliance by states.
The judgment will soon be circulated to all High Courts and district courts, directing them to ensure that no person remains in jail solely because of inability to furnish surety.
A Step Toward True Equality Before Law
This order represents a transformative moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It ensures that freedom is not sold at a price, and that justice remains equal in substance, not just in theory.
If implemented with sincerity, this could become a model for judicial-executive cooperation in achieving social justice.
For countless under-trial prisoners languishing in Indian jails, this judgment could mean a second chance at life, liberty, and dignity.
Also Read
Allahabad High Court Slams UP Police for Detaining Inter-faith Couple Under Social Pressure
Omar Abdullah Mulls Legal Move for J&K Statehood: What It Means & Why It Matters
