Supreme Court ने ओडिशा अदालतों में जाति‑आधारित जमानत शर्तों को निरस्त किया – सभी हाई कोर्टों के लिए निर्देश

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court of India — apex judicial body, final interpreter of the Constitution; its judgments shape law and policy (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> (SC) clarified that its earlier criticism of Odisha’s judiciary was not intended as a personal attack on any High Court judge. The clarification came after the SC, in a <span class="key-term" data-definition="suo motu — action taken by a court on its own initiative without a formal petition; often used by the SC to address matters of public importance (GS2: Polity)">suo motu</span> case, had declared bail conditions that forced accused from Dalit and Adivasi communities to clean police stations as “null and void”. The order now mandates that no court in India may impose such caste‑coloured conditions.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>On <strong>May 4, 2026</strong>, the SC described the bail condition as “obnoxious” and a reflection of caste bias.</li> <li>The SC directed all courts in Odisha to delete any similar conditions and to ensure that accused already on bail remain unencumbered.</li> <li>A copy of the order must be circulated to every High Court, which must inform all judicial officers in their jurisdiction.</li> <li>The SC also issued a sweeping directive that courts outside Odisha must not adopt such conditions in future orders.</li> <li>The clarification by <span class="key-term" data-definition="CJI — Chief Justice of India, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court who heads the judiciary and presides over constitutional benches (GS2: Polity)">CJI</span> <strong>Surya Kant</strong> and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasized that the remarks were not meant to demoralise any judge.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>Eight bail orders between <strong>May 2025 and January 2026</strong> required the accused to clean police stations for two months. Seven of these orders came from district courts in Rayagada district; one was from the Odisha High Court. Six of the accused belonged to the Dalit community and two to Adivasi groups, all linked to anti‑mining protests.</p> <p>The SC characterised the condition as “degrading, humiliating and violative of human rights”, stating that it presumes guilt and contravenes the principle of "innocent until proven guilty".</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>• <span class="key-term" data-definition="Dalit‑Adivasi — socially marginalized communities in India; Dalits are historically oppressed castes, while Adivasis are indigenous tribal groups (GS1: Society)">Dalit‑Adivasi</span> issues test the government's commitment to social justice and constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 15.</p> <p>• The case illustrates the role of the judiciary in safeguarding fundamental rights, a core topic in GS2 (Polity) and GS4 (Ethics). It also underscores the concept of "colonial mindset"—a reminder that modern law must reject archaic, punitive practices.</p> <p>• The SC’s directive to all Hi