Supreme Court: State must ensure undertrial prisoners granted bail are released despite inability to meet conditions

The news

The Supreme Court has held that the State of Uttar Pradesh bears the responsibility to ensure that undertrial prisoners who are granted bail are actually released, even if they cannot afford the conditions imposed for their release. A Bench headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh passed the order after learning that of 264 undertrial prisoners who were allowed bail in just 20 of the 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh, only 158 could be released. The remaining 106 remained in jail for various reasons, including inability to provide financial security or a guarantor.

Senior advocate Gaurav Aggarwal, the court’s amicus curiae, submitted that the data covered only 20 districts and that the situation in the other 55 districts was unknown. The court had earlier directed District Legal Services Authorities in Uttar Pradesh to reach out to such prisoners and provide legal aid. In a significant direction, the court said that legal aid cannot be denied to undertrial prisoners who have engaged private lawyers but still cannot comply with bail conditions. The court reasoned that both categories face the same hurdle of being denied freedom despite having got bail, and that such denial affects their fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court also requested trial courts to modify bail conditions suitably to enable release. The suo motu case, ‘In re policy strategy for grant of bail’, has been listed for hearing in January 2027.

What is the statutory basis for legal aid to undertrials?

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, enacted to give effect to Article 39A of the Constitution, provides free legal aid to eligible persons including those in custody. Under Section 12 of the Act, every person in custody is entitled to legal services regardless of income, and the District Legal Services Authority is the body responsible for implementing this at the district level. The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979) had already held that the right to free legal aid is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure under Article 21, and that a procedure that keeps the poor out of the justice delivery system cannot be regarded as reasonable. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) was constituted in 1995 as the apex body to lay down policies for making legal services available under the Act.

What was the earlier arrangement?

The Supreme Court was hearing a suo motu case, ‘In re policy strategy for grant of bail’, focusing on the systemic problem of undertrial prisoners languishing in jail even after being granted bail. The court had earlier tasked District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) in Uttar Pradesh to reach out to such prisoners and provide legal aid. The data from 20 districts revealed that people remained behind bars after being granted bail for various reasons, including inability to provide financial security or a guarantor.

How does the order change the burden on the State?

By holding the State responsible, the court shifts the burden from the individual to the government to ensure compliance with bail orders. The direction that DLSA assistance cannot be denied to those with private lawyers closes a loophole that excluded a vulnerable group. The data from only 20 districts suggests the problem across all 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh could be much larger, indicating a massive failure in the criminal justice system.

What is the next step?

The court has requested trial courts to modify bail conditions suitably to enable release. The suo motu case is listed for further hearing in January 2027, which may lead to broader policy directions for bail reform across India. The order applies across all 75 districts of Uttar Pradesh, and the government must ensure mechanisms are in place to release undertrial prisoners who cannot afford bail conditions.