The Supreme Court of India has stayed orders of the Kerala High Court that modified anticipatory bail conditions for an accused, allowing her to travel abroad, while an appeal against the original bail order was pending before the apex court. A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held that the High Court’s action of entertaining a modification application when the Supreme Court was seized of the matter runs “contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity.”
The Court also issued a notice to the accused, Respondent No. 1 Anitha R. Nair, asking why her pre-arrest bail should not be cancelled for concealing the fact that she had filed the modification application in the High Court.
Case Background
The case originates from a Special Leave Petition filed by the complainant, Sreeja D G, challenging the Kerala High Court’s order dated February 4, 2025, which granted anticipatory bail to Anitha R. Nair. Ms. Nair is an accused in 31 criminal cases registered at the Chingavanam Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
The Supreme Court had issued notice in the matter on April 9, 2025. While these proceedings were pending, Ms. Nair filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 6178 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court on July 6, 2025, seeking permission to travel abroad. One of the conditions of her anticipatory bail was that she “shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court.”
On August 12, 2025, the High Court allowed her application, deleting the restrictive condition and permitting her to leave India for two weeks. The High Court reasoned, “Considering that the restriction, if continued, will result in the petitioner’s Visa expiring and that the pendency of crimes cannot be a bar for the movement of a citizen, I deem it appropriate to modify the condition.”
Subsequently, on August 22, 2025, Ms. Nair filed another application seeking a specific direction for the release of her passport. The High Court, observing that its earlier order would become “otiose” without such a direction, clarified on August 23, 2025, that the passport should be released.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court took strong exception to these developments, which occurred while it was actively hearing the challenge to the bail order. The bench noted that the respondent had filed the modification application and obtained orders from the High Court without bringing these facts to the notice of the Supreme Court, even though her counsel appeared before the apex court on July 14, July 25, and August 25, 2025. Her counter-affidavit filed on July 14, 2025, made no mention of the application.
The Court expressed its “grave displeasure” at the respondent’s conduct.
Delving into the principles of judicial hierarchy and discipline, the Court observed, “The proper administration of justice demands that when an order passed by the High Court is under challenge and notice has been issued by this Court, thereafter, if any application is filed for modification of the said order, the High Court must exercise restraint, as far as practicable, in passing any orders which can possibly have the effect of circumventing, prejudicing, or rendering infructuous the proceedings pending before this Court.”
The bench cited its previous judgment in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., which established that while a High Court is not “subordinate” to the Supreme Court, the constitutional scheme places the Supreme Court vertically above it in a “unified hierarchical judicial system.” The appellate power of the Supreme Court naturally implies that lower forums must comply with its process.
The Court also referred to Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, where it had deprecated a High Court entertaining a parallel writ petition on an issue of which the Supreme Court was already seized. The bench reiterated that “such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench stated, “in our view, the orders passed by the High Court modifying the order which is under challenge before this Court, during the pendency of this special leave petition, is contrary to the judicial propriety and discipline which is expected from the High Court.”
Decision and Directions
The Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- All orders passed by the Kerala High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 6178 of 2025 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2025 are stayed until further orders.
- Respondent No. 1, Anitha R. Nair, shall immediately surrender her passport.
- She shall not leave India without the permission of the Supreme Court.
- A notice has been issued to her to show cause why her anticipatory bail should not be cancelled on account of her conduct of concealing facts. She has been directed to file a response within three weeks.
The matter has been listed for further orders on September 26, 2025.
