Rajasthan High Court Orders Immediate Release of NDPS Convict, Criticizes Lawyer Boycotts
The Rajasthan High Court in Jaipur has taken a significant stand for personal liberty by suspending a condition requiring the deposit of a Rs 1 lakh fine and ordering the immediate release of a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court emphatically ruled that an impossible-to-comply condition, stemming from poverty, cannot be permitted to defeat the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Case Details and Court's Rationale
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand passed this landmark order on Friday while hearing the case of Rajesh Kushwah, who was convicted for drug peddling and sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. Kushwah has already served nearly eight years of his sentence. His sentence was initially suspended on October 7, 2025, subject to the deposit of the fine and compliance with other bail conditions. However, he remained incarcerated because he could not arrange the substantial amount of Rs 1 lakh.
The court held that keeping the accused in jail solely due to his inability to deposit the fine undermined the very purpose of suspending the sentence. This practice, the court stated, violates the right to life and personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In a powerful assertion, the court declared that poverty should not be allowed to defeat liberty, highlighting the judiciary's role in protecting the rights of the economically disadvantaged.
Criticism of Lawyer Boycotts and Impact on Justice
In the same order, Justice Dhand also criticized the recent abstention of lawyers from court work, which was organized to oppose Saturday sittings. The court observed that such boycotts gravely affect cases involving personal liberty and infringe upon litigants' right to speedy justice. Citing the precedent set in Ex-Capt Harish Uppal vs Union of India, the court reiterated that advocates have no right to strike, particularly when the liberty of jail inmates is at stake.
The court noted, "When lawyers boycott the courts, it directly violates the rights of the litigants to speedy justice, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." While acknowledging that dissent and protest are protected in a democracy, the court emphasized that such rights are not absolute and must not compromise the administration of justice.
Court's Directives and Broader Implications
Describing such boycotts as a situation where litigants are "held to ransom," the court directed the trial court to release the applicant forthwith on the remaining bail conditions. To prevent misuse, the court clarified that this order would not be treated as a precedent for other cases. Additionally, it directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Rajasthan, underscoring the need for professional accountability among legal practitioners.
This ruling underscores several critical issues:
- The judiciary's commitment to upholding personal liberty, especially for those marginalized by poverty.
- The importance of ensuring that bail conditions are realistic and not punitive.
- The ethical responsibilities of lawyers in maintaining the smooth functioning of the justice system.
By addressing both the specific case of Rajesh Kushwah and the broader concern of lawyer boycotts, the Rajasthan High Court has reinforced the principles of justice, equality, and the rule of law in India's legal framework.
