Explained: Why Punjab and Haryana HC says liberty can’t wait for paperwork

In a decision that fuses constitutional principle with practical reform, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that liberty, once granted by a court, must not be kept in suspension for want of paperwork.

A Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Mandeep Pannu ruled that downloaded copies of bail or suspension of sentence orders — taken from the high court’s official website and attested by an advocate — must be accepted for furnishing bail bonds. There would be no need for a certified copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify authenticity, they may do so online and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.

The order applies to every person in judicial custody who has been granted bail or suspension of sentence. It is intended to ensure that no one remains behind bars “even a day longer” because the certified copy or stamped order has not reached the trial court or prison authorities.

The case that triggered it

The Bench was hearing an appeal by a man convicted of attempt to murder and kidnapping for ransom in Gurugram in 2018, for which he was serving a life sentence. The court noted that the appeal was unlikely to be heard soon. The ransom involved was Rs 50,000, the victim’s gunshot injury was on the right thigh — a non-vital part of the body — and the convict had already been in custody for over eight years with remission, and more than seven years without remission.

In these circumstances, the judges ordered suspension of the sentence, with the release taking effect from the moment the order was uploaded on the high court’s website. But the Bench also took the opportunity to address a recurring and serious problem: liberty granted in court often being delayed in practice.

Why this matters

The ruling is rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Courts have repeatedly interpreted this to mean that personal liberty is a fundamental right, and any unjustified detention — even for a day — is a violation of that right.

In reality, however, people who have been granted bail or whose sentences have been suspended often remain in custody for days because certified copies of the order are slow to arrive. The delay may be due to the registry’s processing time, technical issues in court computer systems, or bottlenecks at the prosecution’s end. For the person in custody, these delays mean an avoidable and unconstitutional continuation of imprisonment.

By allowing downloaded copies to be used immediately — with verification safeguards — the court has effectively dismantled a procedural hurdle that was out of step with the spirit of Article 21. The move also reflects the principle laid down in earlier Supreme Court rulings that “bail is the rule and jail the exception” and that liberty must be zealously guarded.

How it will work

Under the new ruling, once a court grants bail or suspends a sentence, an advocate can instantly download the order and the case status from the high court’s official website. The advocate may attest it as a true copy and present it before the court where the bail bonds are to be furnished.

If the attesting officer — such as a magistrate or authorised court official — wishes to verify its authenticity, they can directly check the high court’s website. Once verified, the same downloaded copy can be used for attesting the bonds. This eliminates the need to wait for a certified copy from the registry, which can take days.

The order explicitly states that the process applies to all persons in judicial custody who have been granted bail or suspension of sentence, and that it is intended to ensure liberty is restored “without any delay.”

What now

With the high court’s direction taking effect immediately, lawyers and trial courts now have a clear pathway to act on bail orders without waiting for physical paperwork. If implemented across the board, it could drastically reduce the time gap between a judicial order of release and the actual release from custody.

The ruling also sends a larger message to the justice system: procedural formalities must serve the cause of liberty, not delay it. By making downloaded, verifiable orders sufficient for release, the court has reinforced that the Constitution’s promise of personal liberty is not merely theoretical — it must operate in real time.

If other high courts adopt similar procedures, it could set a nationwide standard, reducing prolonged custody and aligning judicial practice more closely with constitutional ideals. For now, in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, the message from the high court is unmistakable — freedom cannot be kept waiting for a seal and a stamp.