```
```
Jasbir Singh v. State of Punjab (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 470
Supreme Court of India
2006
(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 470
Constitutional & Criminal Procedure
~7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi
|
Location: India
|
Published: 02 Nov 2025
Article 227 Superintendence
Administrative/Inspecting Judge
Bail Jurisdiction
Article 235 Control
Judicial Independence
Quick Summary
This case draws a firm line: Administrative/Inspecting Judges cannot act like trial courts during inspections. Article 227 gives only a supervisory power—ensuring courts stay within their limits. It does not allow granting bail or telling a Sessions Judge how to decide. Bail and other orders affecting rights must follow the proper procedural route. Here, the Supreme Court disapproved the interference, reaffirmed independence of subordinate courts, and disposed of the appeal since the petitioner was already on bail.
Issues
- Can an Inspecting/Administrative Judge grant bail during a jail inspection or direct the Sessions Judge to grant bail?
- Does Article 227 allow High Court Judges to interfere with the judicial functions of subordinate courts?
Rules
- Article 227 (Superintendence): Supervisory only—no interference with merits or outcomes of judicial decisions.
- Judicial Independence: Subordinate courts must decide cases free from administrative influence.
- Due Process for Bail: Bail must be decided by the competent court under the statutory procedure; any shortcut is invalid.
- Article 235 (Control): Administrative control (postings, promotions, discipline) does not include telling courts how to decide cases.
Facts (Timeline)
Jump here
FIR against Jasbir Singh and others under IPC forgery/PC Act; arrest and remand.
Bail first refused by the Sessions Judge; fresh bail moved (hearing fixed for 05.05.2003).
29.04.2003: Administrative Judge inspects court and jail; petitioner submits bail plea during inspection.
Administrative Judge orally indicates consideration and asks Sessions Judge to look at parity and delay.
05.05.2003: Bail again refused; 06.05.2003: granted after “reminder” of inspection note.
Complaint to Chief Justice; matter placed before the same Judge on judicial side; bail later set aside citing lack of reasons.
Petitioner approaches Supreme Court under special leave; already on bail.
Arguments
Petitioner (Jasbir Singh)
- Inspection-time directions influenced the Sessions Court; later cancellation was unfair.
- Since liberty was granted, it should not be disturbed without strong reasons.
Respondent (State/Complainant)
- Administrative directions cannot replace judicial consideration; the process was improper.
- Bail must rest on reasons and law, not on inspection notes.
Judgment (Held)
- Article 227 is supervisory; it does not license High Court Judges to direct outcomes in pending cases.
- An Administrative/Inspecting Judge cannot exercise judicial power during inspection; such action is improper.
- Subordinate courts must be independent; administrative influence over bail decisions is impermissible.
- Article 235 control is administrative only; it cannot intrude into judicial discretion.
- Bail orders must follow the statutory framework; a bail granted outside due process lacks sanction.
- As the petitioner was already out on bail, the Supreme Court did not disturb his liberty; appeal disposed with these directions.
Ratio
Supervisory ≠ Substitution. Article 227 ensures lawful functioning, not decision-making by superiors. Administrative oversight cannot become a tool to grant, direct, or cancel bail; only the competent court, following procedure, can do so.
Why It Matters
- Protects judicial independence of trial courts from administrative pressure.
- Clarifies limits of Article 227 and Article 235 in daily court practice.
Key Takeaways
- Article 227: supervision, not interference.
- No bail directions during inspection.
- Bail must follow statutory procedure.
- Article 235 is administrative only.
- Subordinate courts decide independently.
- Supreme Court left liberty undisturbed.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “See, Not Sit” — Supervisors see (oversee), they do not sit as trial courts.
- Identify the role: administrative vs judicial.
- Apply proper forum and procedure (bail to Sessions/High Court judicially).
- Avoid administrative nudges that taint judicial discretion.
IRAC Outline
Issue
- Whether an Administrative Judge can grant/direct bail during inspection; scope of Article 227 over judicial acts.
Rule
- Article 227 is supervisory only; judicial independence bars administrative interference; bail needs statutory process.
Application
- Inspection note influenced the Sessions Court; such influence is improper and beyond administrative role.
Conclusion
- Administrative interference disapproved; petitioner’s bail not disturbed; appeal disposed of with guidance.
Glossary
- Article 227
- High Court’s power of superintendence over courts/tribunals—supervisory, not appellate.
- Article 235
- Administrative control of High Courts over subordinate judiciary (postings, promotions, discipline).
- Administrative/Inspecting Judge
- A Judge overseeing administrative functioning; cannot pass judicial orders during inspection.
Student FAQs
No. Judicial decisions must be independent and reasoned under law, not guided by administrative notes.
The competent judicial court (Sessions/High Court) following the Code of Criminal Procedure and settled principles.
Yes, by ensuring jurisdictional discipline and legality—but without stepping into merits like an appellate court.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now