HC slams elitist bias, says slum residence no ground to deny bail

A vast section of Bharat lives in humble dwellings — often on the peripheries of elite urban colonies—but that cannot be a reason to view its people through a lens of suspicion, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear.

In a searing indictment of class bias, the Bench held that reliance on an accused person’s slum residence to deny bail reflects an “unconscious elitist mindset” and amounts to constitutionally impermissible stereotyping.

The court also cautioned that the justice system must not allow unconscious prejudices and elitist thinking to cloud decision-making. “While dispensing justice, the courts should not bear a closed and prejudicial mindset towards the poor and marginalised sections of our society, including those who live in slums. Justice must always be rooted in empathy, fairness and an unwavering commitment to equality,” the Bench added.

The court was hearing a revision petition filed by a child in conflict with law (CICL), who was denied bail first by the Juvenile Justice Board and then by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. A key reason cited for denial was that the petitioner resided in a slum.

Quashing the orders, the Bench observed: “Far from being hubs of delinquency, these communities are often close-knit, offering warmth, support, mutual care, emotional sustenance and a sense of belonging; qualities that an institutional setting can seldom replicate and are starkly missing in observation homes. By no stretch of imagination can it be sweepingly implied that people who live in slum areas are likely to be more unethical, immoral, dishonest, criminally deviant or are any less human beings… To suggest the same would be an injurious stereotype.”

The court rejected the “arbitrary and insensitive assumption” that slum dwellers are more likely to associate with criminals or pose moral or psychological risks. “It is not just harsh but also humiliating… Such a negative generalisation undermines the intrinsic dignity and the overall value system… and amounts to impermissible stereotyping which can neither be the approach of the Executive nor the mandate of legislation or judicial precedents.”

The Bench also took exception to the denial of bail on the ground that the child was an orphan. “To view orphanhood as a disqualification for bail is to disregard the very spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act… such a child deserves greater compassion and support.”

The court noted the CICL had been in custody since May 30, 2023, and had already undergone more than half of the maximum sentence of three years. Observing that prolonged incarceration in observation homes may cause more harm, the court granted bail while clarifying that the observations were limited to the present case and not intended for any collateral purpose.