The Supreme Court bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi addressed an important question concerning judicial propriety and the scope of High Court jurisdiction when its orders are under challenge before the Supreme Court.

Background :

The present Special Leave Petition was filed on 24/03/2025 challenging the order of the High Court of Kerala granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent–Accused, Anitha R. Nair, in multiple criminal cases registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 21 and 23 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

After the grant of the anticipatory bail, the Respondent-Accused filed an application in the High Court on 06/07/2025 seeking permission to travel abroad. The High Court, by its order dated 12 August 2025, modified the earlier bail conditions and allowed the accused to travel overseas subject to certain conditions. Subsequently, the High Court, on 23 August 2025, further clarified that the accused’s passport must also be released to make the permission effective.

The bench noted that these modification orders were passed during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition challenging the very anticipatory bail order.

The court referred to Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.(2004) and observed that, “....where the order granting anticipatory bail by the High Court was impugned in the instant special leave petition and this Court was seized of the matter, an order modifying the conditions of anticipatory bail set out therein, runs contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and comity. 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 Court also referred to Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services (1995 Supp (3) SCC 434), where it had deprecated parallel proceedings in the High Court on issues pending before the Supreme Court. The principle reaffirmed was that conflicting exercises of jurisdiction must strictly be avoided to preserve judicial discipline and public faith in the justice delivery system.

Thus, in view of the above, the court held that the orders passed by the High Court modifying the order that is under challenge before the Supreme Court, during the pendency of the present Special Leave Petition, are contrary to the principles of judicial propriety and discipline and consequently put a stay on all the orders passed by the High Court until further direction.

Furthermore, the Court directed the accused to surrender her passport and restrained her from leaving India without its permission. Notice was also issued to the accused to explain why the anticipatory bail protection should not be cancelled for alleged concealment of material facts.

Case Title: Sreeja D G & Ors. v Anitha R. Nair & Anr., SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6677-6681/2025

Advocates for Petitioners: Mr. V Chitmbaresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jogy Scaria, AOR Mr. C Govind Venugopal, Adv. Mr. E Krishna Perumal, Adv.

Advocates for Respondents: Mr. Ragenth Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR, Ms. Hina Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Gifty Marium Joseph, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.