He only wanted bail. The judge summoned three strangers and the Supreme Court stepped in.

One bail hearing, three strangers dragged in, one Supreme Court reset

When a police officer named Mahesh PS was arrested for demanding a bribe, he did what any accused does: he filed a bail application. The case was routine. The stakes were ordinary. Then the Karnataka High Court judge presiding over the bail hearing did something extraordinary. He summoned three people who had nothing to do with the bail case — the State of Karnataka, an IPS officer who headed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, and the District Collector — made harsh remarks against them in open court, and directed the CBI to produce past investigation reports against the IPS officer. All of it was broadcast live on YouTube. All of it made headlines. And all of it, the Supreme Court has now ruled, was entirely without jurisdiction.

The bail hearing that became a public trial of strangers

On 20 May 2022, the Anti-Corruption Bureau in Karnataka registered an FIR under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Mahesh PS, a police officer accused of demanding a bribe. He was taken into custody. On 7 July 2022, he moved an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking bail.

What happened next was anything but routine. The Single Judge, during the course of the bail proceedings, summoned three persons who were not parties to the bail application: the State of Karnataka, represented through its Chief Secretary; Seemant Kumar Singh, an IPS officer who was the Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau conducting the investigation; and J. Manjunath, the District Collector. The court made adverse remarks against them. It also directed the CBI to produce past investigation reports against the IPS officer. The entire proceeding was live-streamed on YouTube, and the remarks were widely reported by the media.

The three aggrieved parties — Seemant Kumar Singh, the State of Karnataka, and J. Manjunath — approached the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution, seeking expungement of the adverse remarks and setting aside of the CBI direction.

What the Supreme Court saw that the High Court missed

A Bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah heard the appeals. The core problem, the Supreme Court found, was that the High Court had made adverse remarks against persons who were not parties to the proceedings, without giving them an opportunity to be heard, and in a forum — a bail hearing — that had no business entertaining such directions.

The Court began by examining the law on adverse remarks. It cited Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569, where the Supreme Court had held that courts must be "extremely careful" while passing adverse remarks and should resort to them only if necessary to reach a fair conclusion to meet the ends of justice. Judges, the Court said, must be guided by consideration of justice, fair play and restraint.

It then turned to State of M.P. v. Nandlal Jaiswal, (1986) 4 SCC 566, which held that judges must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint and must recognise they are not infallible; harsh strictures may do considerable harm and mischief and result in injustice.

The Court also referred to Election Commission of India v. M.R. Vijaybhaskar, (2021) 9 SCC 770, which emphasised that judges must exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court that are susceptible to misinterpretation. Judicial language, the Court noted, must comport with judicial propriety. "Responsibility bears a direct co-relationship with the nature and dimensions of entrustment of power," the Bench observed.

The witness rule the Supreme Court applied

The principle was straightforward: you cannot make adverse remarks against a person without giving them a hearing. The High Court had summoned three persons who were not parties to the bail proceedings, made remarks against them, and directed the CBI to produce reports against one of them — all without affording them an opportunity to be heard. That, the Supreme Court held, was a violation of the most basic principle of natural justice.

The Court also found that the remarks were not necessary for the decision of the bail case. The High Court could have granted or refused bail without making any adverse remarks against the three appellants. The remarks, the Bench observed, were "wholly unjustified" and "liable to be expunged."

Why the High Court's CBI direction was a bridge too far

Even more problematic was the direction to the CBI to produce past investigation reports against the IPS officer. The Supreme Court turned to RBI v. Cooperative Bank Deposit A/C HR. Sha, (2010) 15 SCC 85, which held that the High Court must confine itself to issues relevant for deciding bail under Section 439 CrPC and cannot pass far-reaching directions beyond the scope of a bail application.

It then cited State Represented by Inspector of Police v. M. Murugesan & Anr., (2020) 15 SCC 251, which held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is limited to granting or refusing bail. Courts cannot issue directions under the guise of improving the criminal justice system in bail proceedings.

The Court also relied on State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 770, which held that inherent power cannot be used as an omnibus to open issues foreign to the main context. The invoking of power must be connected to the proceeding and cannot sprout altogether new issues.

The direction to the CBI, the Supreme Court held, was entirely outside the scope of Section 439 CrPC proceedings. The High Court had no jurisdiction to issue such a direction in a bail application.

The live-streaming factor: a new layer of responsibility

The Supreme Court made a significant observation about the impact of live broadcasting of court proceedings. The Bench noted that the advent of virtual hearings and live telecasting of proceedings has ushered the judicial system into a new age of accessibility and transparency. But it also attaches a stricter standard of responsibility on judges, as remarks passed in court now have far-reaching ramifications and can cause great injury to the reputation of parties involved.

"The advent of virtual hearings and live telecasting of proceedings has ushered the judicial system into a new age of accessibility and transparency, clearing the roadblock of physical infrastructure limitations that constrained access to justice," the Court observed. But it added that this transparency comes with a corresponding duty of care. Courts must exercise extreme caution and pass adverse remarks only with proper justification, in the right forum, and when necessary to meet the ends of justice.

In this case, the adverse remarks were broadcast live on YouTube and widely reported by the media. The reputational injury to the three appellants was real and substantial. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had failed to exercise the caution required in the era of live broadcasting.

THE PLAY: If you are a judge hearing a bail application, confine yourself to the question of bail. Do not summon strangers, do not make adverse remarks against non-parties, and do not issue directions that have nothing to do with the grant or refusal of bail. If you are a litigant or counsel facing such remarks, move the Supreme Court under Article 136 for expungement — the Court will not hesitate to quash them.

The bottom line for practitioners

The Supreme Court allowed all three appeals. The adverse remarks passed by the High Court against the appellants were expunged. The impugned interim order dated 7 July 2022 was quashed. The High Court was requested to expeditiously conclude the bail proceedings of Mahesh PS in accordance with law on its own merits, without being prejudiced or influenced by this judgment.

For advocates, CFOs and founders who may find themselves on the receiving end of adverse judicial remarks in proceedings they are not even a party to, this judgment is a powerful tool. The Supreme Court has made it clear that such remarks are liable to be expunged if they are made without jurisdiction, without affording a hearing, and without necessity for the decision of the case. The Court has also signalled that the era of live broadcasting imposes a stricter standard of judicial responsibility — and that the remedy for overreach is swift and decisive.

One actionable takeaway: If a court makes adverse remarks against you in proceedings where you are not a party, without giving you a hearing, and the remarks are not necessary for the decision of the case, the Supreme Court will expunge them — and it will do so without hesitation.