The Supreme Court of India has set aside and expunged adverse remarks made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Additional Advocate General (AAG) of Haryana. The top court termed the High Court’s comments as “wholly unwarranted” in a case where an undertrial prisoner died while his bail application was still pending.
The matter relates to a bail plea filed in the case of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Dutt (Dead) Through LR Indra Dutt [SLP(Crl.) No. 2182/2025]. During the pendency of the bail application, the petitioner passed away due to medical reasons.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Mere Use of Abusive Words Like ‘Impotent’ Doesn't Amount to Abetment of Suicide
A Supreme Court bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the bail application had become infructuous by the time the High Court took it up for hearing. The Court expressed concern that despite the petitioner’s death, the High Court went on to deliver a lengthy order consisting of 26 paragraphs, which included strong observations against the State and the AAG.
“In the circumstances, the High Court could have simply disposed of the matter by recording the said fact,” the Supreme Court stated.
“However, the High Court has proceeded to pass a lengthy order... and in the said order... proceeded to make certain observations as against the State, who was represented by learned Additional Advocate General. We find that the said observations which are bordering on strictures were wholly unwarranted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,” the bench added.
The High Court had made critical remarks against Deepak Sabharwal, the Additional Advocate General of Haryana, stating that incorrect and misleading submissions were made on behalf of the State. As a result, the State of Haryana approached the Supreme Court, seeking removal of those observations.
On the other hand, the legal representatives of the deceased opposed the appeal, arguing that the High Court's comments were justified. They contended that misleading arguments led to denial of timely relief, which contributed to the petitioner’s death.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Halts Scholarships for Students with Annual Family Income Above Rs.25 Lakh
However, the Supreme Court took note that the petitioner had been provided medical treatment at PGIMER, Chandigarh. The Court emphasized that the proper course for the High Court would have been to acknowledge the death of the petitioner and close the case accordingly.
“CRM-M No.2763/2025 had been rendered infructuous as on 31.01.2025 owing to the demise of the petitioner in the said case on account of medical reasons,” the Supreme Court clarified.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Warns of Contempt: Ramdev Agrees to Delete Video Targeting Rooh Afza
Accordingly, the top court set aside the High Court’s order and expunged all adverse remarks made against the State and the Additional Advocate General.
“We set aside the impugned order of the High Court by also expunging all those observations as against the State and/or learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State,” the Supreme Court concluded.
The appeal was thus allowed and disposed of on April 21, 2025.
Case Details: STATE OF HARYANA v. SUBHASH CHANDER DUTT (DEAD) THROUGH LRINDRA DUTT|SLP(Crl) No. 2182/2025
