最高裁判所がサンジャイ・シン氏に保釈を認めたことは、無差別逮捕や説明責任の欠如がしばしば長期拘留につながるインドの根深い保釈問題を浮き彫りにしている。保釈が標準であるべきであるという指示にもかかわらず、不十分な基礎整備、法的援助の欠如、裁判官の不足により、刑務所がデフォルトとなっています。政府は、別個の保釈法を制定し、個人の自由と有罪が証明されるまでの推定無罪を尊重する考え方を育てることで、この問題に対処する必要がある。
Supreme Court's recent decision to grant bail to AAP MP Sanjay Singh has once again highlighted India's lingering bail problem. Singh was jailed for six months after the Delhi High Court refused him bail last year, stating prima facie that Singh was part of the policy planning team of the now-scrapped Delhi liquor policy, which has allegedly resulted in revenue loss for the state government. Not much headway was made since his October 2023 arrest regarding his guilt or innocence.
The apex court has consistently highlighted that bail should be the rule, jail an exception. Using arrest as a punitive measure leads to one of the most severe consequences in criminal law - loss of personal liberty. Bail is a lifeline for undertrial prisoners, providing temporary reprieve from incarceration. It also helps decongest India's prisons and reduce strain on the judicial system.
The court has always underlined the need to go by the doctrine of three tests on bail: an accused should be granted bail if they do not present a flight risk, are unlikely to tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
Despite these directives, jail has become a default practice in India because of indiscriminate arrests, lack of repercussions on police for inadequate groundwork, absence of free legal aid (especially for those at the bottom of the pyramid), and a paucity of judges to tackle cases.
To fix this broken and arbitrary system, GoI must, as the top court had asked in 2022, move on a separate bail Act to streamline the process of granting bail to ensure that bail in India is not just for those making headlines like Singh, but for all citizens.
Above all, there must be a change of mindset that upholds the principles of personal freedom and accepts that one is innocent until proven guilty.
