Supreme Court: In a suo motu cognizance triggered from series of bail orders passed by the Orissa High Court and subordinate courts, wherein accused persons were directed to undertake cleaning of police stations as bail condition, thereby raising serious concerns regarding accused persons’ constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality, and fairness in criminal process, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJ., and Joymalya Bagchi, J., noting the same to be “abhorrent, degrading, and unknown to law”, declared all such conditions, requiring cleaning of police stations or similar acts, as null and void. Recognising broader implications, the Court further issued omnibus directions.
Factual Matrix
The instant controversy originated from prolonged protests beginning in 2023 by expropriated landowners and settlers in Rayagada and Kalahandi Districts of Orissa, whose lands were acquired or proposed to be acquired by the Vedanta Group for a bauxite mining project. These protests, largely led by members of Adivasi and Dalit communities, were alleged to have intermittently turned violent, including attacks on officials using axes and bows.
Multiple FIRs were registered, resulting in the arrest of 40 individuals. While several accused were granted bail by trial courts and the Orissa High Court, such bail was made subject to unusual and unprecedented conditions, requiring accused persons to undertake cleaning of police stations for a specified period. For example:
1. In Kumeswar Naik v. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 5378, the Orissa High Court directed that the accused “shall clean the premises of the Kasipur Police Station… for two months”.
2. A similar condition was imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rayagada in Laxman Naik v. State of Odisha, BA No. 230 of 2015, decided on 16 December 2025
These conditions required cleaning work between 6.00 a.m. to 9.00 a.m., with cleaning materials to be provided by police authorities. Further, at least 6 similar orders were passed between May 2025 and January 2026 by trial courts in Odisha imposing comparable conditions. It was submitted by the Advocate General and other counsel that such conditions were not imposed on accused persons from more privileged sections of society.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court clarified that it was not concerned with the legality of land acquisition or the correctness of FIRs, but only with the nature of bail conditions imposed.
The Court took note of widespread reports suggesting that such conditions may reflect an underlying bias against marginalised communities, particularly Adivasis. It observed that these conditions appeared to be founded upon a presumption of guilt and were akin to imposing a form of punishment even before trial.
The Court acknowledged that even if impugned conditions were imposed inadvertently, their nature was “abhorrent, degrading, and unknown to law”, that “it carries the potential to cast a serious aspersion, suggesting that the Odisha Judiciary is afflicted by a caste-based bias”.
The Court stated that we the people of India had given ourselves through the Constitution a vision of a casteless society founded upon the principle of substantive equality. Article 17 abolishes untouchability and caste-based discrimination and Articles 14, 15, and 16 guarantee equality before law and equal opportunity.
The Court defined the judiciary, as “sentinel on the qui vive”, who bears a duty to safeguard these guarantees, especially for vulnerable groups. It emphasised that over decades, equality has evolved into a powerful constitutional tool to prevent arbitrary State action. It further referred to E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3, the Court enunciated the foundational principle that equality is antithetical to arbitrariness and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248, where the Court held that the procedure established by law must be just, fair, and reasonable.
The Court was deeply disappointed and disheartened and expressed strong disapproval of the Odisha judiciary’s approach, observing the conditions imposed were “onerous, degrading, and humiliating”, they were ex facie violative of human rights and the approach reflects a “regression to a colonial mindset”. It asserted that such conditions, strike at the dignity of the accused and proceed on a presumption of guilt, which is totally impermissible in law.
Decision and Directions
The Court directed that,
-
The impugned conditions (as reproduced in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order) and any similarly worded conditions are null and void.
-
All courts in the State of Odisha were directed to delete such offending conditions forthwith, and to refrain from imposing similar or analogous conditions in future.
-
All affected accused persons shall continue on bail and be deemed to have been relieved of such impermissible conditions.
-
Recognising broader implications, it was directed to the Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts. Each High Court to communicate the same to all judicial officers with clear instructions that such conditions must not be imposed under any circumstances.
-
The Registrar General of the Orissa High Court to file a compliance report within 4 weeks.
-
The petition was disposed of accordingly, with listing on 11 May 2026 for compliance.
[Condition Being Imposed While Granting Bail by High Court of Orissa and District Courts in the State of Odisha and Ancillary Issues, In re, Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2026, decided on 4-5-2026]
