Justice Anil Kumar Sinha quashes criminal proceedings under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holds prosecution to be a “counterblast”

In Ankit Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court delivered a 16-page long judgement dated May 16, 2026, wherein, he quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions, holding that the prosecution appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier dowry harassment complaint filed by one of the accused against her husband and in-laws. 

Justice Sinha concluded:"24. It is well settled principle that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment and private vendetta. The High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.... The learned Special Court has taken cognizance without appreciating the attending circumstances, and in mechanical manner. 27. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion and the attending circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a vexatious, frivolous and malicious complaint has been instituted against the appellants with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance which is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the wife/appellant no. 4 against her husband at Jaipur. The FIR was lodged by the domestic help/caretaker of the husband of appellant no. 4 and the same is in abuse of the process of Court to harass the appellants and the learned Special Court has taken cognizance without due application of judicial mind. Allowing the prosecution to continue will result in miscarriage of justice to the appellants. 28. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra and the entire prosecution arising out of Garhka P.S.Case No. 298 of 2020 against the appellants is hereby quashed."

Justice Sinha drew on the analytical framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of UP (2025) SCC Online SC 1947, becomes highly relevant. The court delineated four steps to determine the veracity of a prayer gor quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which are as follows:-

Step 1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

Step 2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

Step 3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant, and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

Step 4. Whether proceedings with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice?

Justice Sinha observed: "If the answer to all the steps is in affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.22. In the present matter, it appears that respondent no. 2 has been set up by the husband and mother-in-law of appellant no. 4 to lodge the present FIR in order to take revenge for lodging FIR at Jaipur by appellant no. 4 against her husband and his family members. The informant has admitted in the FIR that she is domestic help/caretaker of the house of Late father of the husband of appellant no. 4. 23. The motive for instituting the FIR against the appellants appears to be at the behest of landlords/masters of the respondent no. 2, i.e., Manish Kumar and Meera Devi, in whose house the respondent no. 2 resides and work for profit. If attending circumstances, emerging from the record of the case, is taken into account and the FIR is read with due care and circumspection, this Court comes to the conclusion that the criminal prosecution has been lodged in order to wreck vengeance on appellant no. 4 and her entire family for instituting a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C against the masters/landlord of respondent no. 2, including the husband of appellant no. 4. The FIR is a counterblast and tool to harass the appellants by way of launching false and malicious prosecution."

The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the informant, namely Kalawati Devi, was that she resides in the house of late Ramji Singh and she was a caretaker of his garmland and house. In June 2019, Manish Kumar, son of late Ramji Singh, was married with Shalini Sharma/appellant no. 4.

Ankit Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma appellant nos. 1 and 3, who are brothers of Shalini Sharma/appellant no.4, visited the house of late Ramji Singh and abused her, addressing her with her caste name and threatened to throw her belongings out of the house. It was alleged that on June 29, 2020, appellants, along with two unknown persons, arrived in a car from their village Baikuntpur, Vaishali. Upon arrival, Shailendra Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma started hurling caste-based abuses and threatened the informant to vacate the house. The informant requested for some time to make alternative arrangements and upon hearing this, appellant nos. 1 to 3 dragged the informant by her hair out on to the road, assaulted her and tore her saree in order to outrage her modesty. When the informant's husband intervened to save her, he was also assaulted by the appellants. The local people gathered at the spot after hearing noise. In the meanwhile, appellant no. 1 took out pistol, pointed it at the informant’s forehead and threatened her to vacate the house failing which she would face dire consequences.

Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 amends Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase strength of judges from 33 to 37 judges

Two weeks prior to Supreme Court's commencement of its six-week long Partial Working Days, the President of India has increased the  strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 Judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) by promulgating The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which has further amended the “Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The Ordinance has been promulgated to ensure the Court to “function more efficiently and effectively”. The Ordinance was notified in the Gazette of India on May 16 11 days after the Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister approved the proposal on May 11 for introducing The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament to amend The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. The government invoked Article 123 of the Constitution which empowers the President to legislate by Ordinance. The Ordinance is required to be laid before both Houses within six weeks of their reassembly else it will lapse.

The Court’s working strength is 32 including the Chief Justice of India. There are two vacancies and four judges are retiring this year. 

Article 124 (1) in Constitution of India reads:“There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges…” An act to increase the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was enacted in 1956 vide 2-page long The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956. Section 2 of the Act provided for the maximum number of Judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) to be 10. The Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was increased to 13 by The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1977. The working strength of the Supreme Court of India was restricted to 15 Judges by the Union Cabinet, excluding the Chief Justice of India, till the end of 1979, when the restriction was withdrawn at the request of the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986 further augmented the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India, excluding the Chief Justice of India, from 17 to 25. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008 further augmented the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India from 25 to 30. The Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India) by further amending the original act vide The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019 with effect from August 9, 2019.

The pendency in the Supreme Court is at a record 92,823 cases as of April 30, 2026. A writ petition filed in 2016 makes a case for constitution of a National Court of Appeal. It is pending with a Constitution Bench. In Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2017), a 7-Judge Constitution Bench held that the ordinance-making power to be subject of judicial scrutiny.   

While the Union cabinet seemed to be in a tearing hurry to expand the strength of the judges, it has not shown similar swiftness in clearing the names of the judges recommended by the Collegium.  

 

High Court's Vacation Bench to function during May 18-June 11, next Chief Justice to constitute Vacation Bench on June 5, after retirement of 47th Chief Justice

The Annual Vacation of the Patna High Court shall be from May 18 2026-June 11, 2026. The Vacation Bench has been constituted by a notice dated May 13, 2026. The details regarding the Vacation Bench is provided only till June 4, 2026 because Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo retires on June 4. Justice was sworn as 47th chief justice on January 7, 2026 who became judge on July 2, 2014.

The Court shall functions during the Vacation from 8:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and then from 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. with a recess of half an hour between 10:30 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. All mentions relating to urgent civil and criminal matters (including Division Bench matters) shall be made before the senior most presiding Judge for being taken up as per assignment during the vacations. The following shall be assignment of roster during vacations subject to further allocations as per request for listing of only writ petitions. 

During the first week [18.05.2026 (Monday) to 21.05.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Rajiv Roy will hear cases pertaining to Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act A.Bail and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.

2. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.  

3. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail. 

4. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail. 

5. Justice Sourendra Pandey will hearing Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail. 

6. Justice Ajit Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS. 

7. Justice Ritesh Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.

8. Justice Praveen Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail. 

9. Justice Ansul will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail.

During the second week [25.05.2026 (Monday) to 28.05.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Ajit Kumar will hear Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Justice Ritesh Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.
3. Justice Ansul will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail

During the third week [01.06.2026 (Monday) to 04.06.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Partha Sarthy will hear Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act R.Bail and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Justice Harish Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.
3. Justice Dr. Anshuman will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.

Will Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 prevail over High Court's judgments of 1992 and 1996?

Everything has been said already, but as no one listens, we must always begin again. 

-Andre Gide, the winner of Nobel Prize in Literature (1947) in The Counterfeiters (1925)

The office of prosecutors shall be strictly separated from judicial functions.

- Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors, Adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention, of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 27 August-7 September 1990

In Punit Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Justice Dr. Anshuman delivered a-8page long judgement, wherein, he concluded:"13. In light of the provisions under Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, the contention of the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law that, being a Prosecution Officer, he shall always be posted as a District Prosecution Officer, as the Rules governing him, namely the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, itself provide specific provisions for appointment/deputation in other departments as well, wherever the Government or the parent department is in need. 14. So far as the judgment on which the petitioner relied shall not applicable upon the petitioner as those judgments are of 1996 and of 1992 when the Bihar Prosecution Manual has not been enacted. This Court is of the firm view that the services of the petitioner shall be guided by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 and not by any other law till the said prosecution manual any of its provision shall not be declared ultra vires by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Working in any office on deputation cannot be said to be worked under the administrative and disciplinary control of the said department due to the reason that the petitioner is ultimately the employee of Bihar Prosecution Service and the rule framed under Rule 31 of the Manual shall also binding upon upon. 15. In the light of the discussions and reasons mentioned above, this Court is of the firm view that petitioner has no case and, hence, this writ petition is dismissed." The case was filed on January 28, 2025. It was registered on February 1, 2025.  

The petitioner had filed the writ petition for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order of transfer vide Notification No. 145 dated January 16, 2025 at Serial No. 2 from the post of Sub Divisional Prosecution Officer, posted in the District Prosecution Office, Rohtas, Sasaram to the office of Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar as law Officer and further prayer for quashing the relieving order No.8/2025 contained in Memo No. 144 dated April 4, 2025. The counsel of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 1011 dated September 25, 2017 and was subsequently promoted to the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer vide Notification No. 2513 dated October 31, 2023, both issued by the Directorate of Prosecution, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It was also submitted that the petitioner, vide Letter No. 20 dated January 17, 2025, made a representation before the Director of Prosecution requesting that he be posted in any District Prosecution Office by rectifying or omitting his name at Serial No. 2 of the transfer notification. A similar representation was also submitted before respondent no. 2, namely, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, but no relief was granted. The counsel also submitted that the High Court, vide order dated November 14, 1995 passed in CWJC No. 5573 of 1995, had directed the State authorities to create a separate prosecution cadre independent of the police department in terms of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to ensure that no Assistant Public Prosecutor remains subordinate to police officers. The order was challenged by the State of Bihar in LPA No. 294 of 1996, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of vide order dated November 4, 1996. The Special Leave Petition preferred before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. 

Notably, the reasoned order of the Supreme Court has not been cited in the order.  

It was also submitted that pursuant thereto, the Prosecution Manual, 2003 was framed and placed before this Court in MJC No. 2110 of 1997, whereby the Directorate of Prosecution and Prosecution Officers were freed from the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department. The counsel submitted that, after the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974, the prosecution service was intended to function independently of police control. The counsel also submitted that in a similar matter, where a Prosecution Officer was posted at Police Training College, Hazaribagh under the administrative control of the Principal-cum-D.I.G. of Police, a Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated May 21, 1992 passed in CWJC No. 4287 of 1992, had stayed such transfer notification and directed appropriate posting. It was also submitted that despite settled legal position, the respondent authorities were ignoring the law as well as binding precedents of the High Court, inasmuch as Prosecution Officers cannot be placed under the administrative and disciplinary control of the police department or its officers. It was submitted that the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunity to exercise his option for posting.

The counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was an officer of the Bihar Prosecution Service and was presently holding the post of Sub-Divisional Prosecution Officer. In the interest of prosecution administration, the Government of Bihar, Home Department, Directorate of Prosecution, issued Notification No. 145 dated January 16, 2025, whereby 13 Prosecution Officers, including the petitioner, were transferred. It was submitted that all such officers, except the petitioner, joined their respective places of posting. It was submitted that the petitioner was transferred to the Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Patna, as a Law Officer against a sanctioned post, where several Prosecution Officers were already posted and drawing their salaries. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was duly relieved by the District Prosecution Officer In-charge, Rohtas (Sasaram), vide Order No. 8/2025, Memo No. 144 dated April 4, 2025, in compliance with the notification. The counsel further submitted that as per Resolution Memo No. 4521 dated April 3, 1989 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, a gazetted officer was required to join the transferred place of posting within seven days of receipt of the transfer order, failing which departmental proceedings, including suspension, may be initiated. It was also mandated that the controlling officer must relieve such officer within the stipulated period. 

It was also contended that Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 permits posting/deputation of Prosecution Officers in other departments for legal work. The petitioner, being a government servant, is bound by the applicable rules and regulations. Accordingly, it was submitted that the writ petition was devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 

Responding to the State's counsel, counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 does not authorize posting of Prosecution Officers under the administrative department or its officers, which would be contrary to the settled legal position. It was also submitted that such action is also in violation of Rule 31 of the Prosecution Manual, 2003. 

Justice (Dr.) Anshuman observed: "11. After hearing the parties and perusal of the record, it transpires to this Court that with a view to adjudicate this matter, it is necessary to quote the relevant extract of Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, which has been published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) No.177 dated 21st April, 2003. Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the appropriate legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service for public servants serving the Union or a State. Admittedly, the petitioner who is an Officer of Bihar Prosecution Service and working as Bihar Prosecution Officer whose services have been guided by the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003. The State relied on Rules 27 and 31 of the said Manual. It transpired to the High Court that every Prosecution Officer was to work under the Department of Home and according to Rule 27 of the Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003, 5 percent of total sanctioned post shall be available as reserve post and their appointment/deputation may be made in other department for doing the legal work."

The lack of independence and responsibility for prosecutors has undermined  their role in prosecutorial functions such as initiating the prosecution, gathering relevant evidence and withdrawing the case, where the prosecutor enjoys discretion under the law. The Law Commission of India and decisions of the Supreme Court recommended separation of prosecution from the police department, which led to amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now BNSS) to enforce separation and establish independent office of Public Prosecution. The 2005 amendment to the Code had introduced section 25A which suggested the establishment of a Directorate of Prosecution separate from the control of police agencies and under the administrative control of the home department of the state governments.

But Bihar is one of the states which has extend had executive interference in the functioning of the office of prosecution through excessive control over the appointment of the prosecutor. It is reluctant to establish a prosecutorial cadre in the state. The power to appoint prosecutors for the High Court and the District Courts belongs to both the union government and the state governments. But this power is not absolute as the process requires consultation with the judiciary to act as a check on the executive power. The executive in Bihar has attempted to circumvent the consultation requirements by amending the provision of section 24 as they apply to the state. Such amendments are in breach of the statutory provisions and eliminate the role of the judiciary in the appointment of prosecutors to the courts. 

States such as Bihar have made it optional to appoint prosecutors through the regular cadre envisaged under Section 24 (6) through Code of Criminal Procedure (Bihar Amendment) Act 1983 disregarding Court's decisions. 

It is the prosecutor’s responsibility to apply independent mind and decide upon the withdrawal of prosecution. This responsibility cannot be betrayed in the favour of those who are  above them on the administrative side. Before providing consent to the withdrawal of prosecution, the court shall be satisfied that the prosecutor is exercising his/her functions independently and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the normal course of justice for any illegitimate purpose. It has been held in Balvant Singh vs. State of Bihar AIR 1977 SC 2265 and State of Bihar vs. Ram Naresh Pandey AIR 1957 SC 389. 

But amendments by Bihar government and rules enacted by it has curtailed this prerogative. 

Supreme Court in K.J.John vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1990 SC 1902 held that a ‘regular cadre’ as mentioned in section 24(6) of the Code comprised a service with Assistant Public Prosecutor at the lowest level and Public Prosecutor (PP) at the top. 

The prosecutor is empowered to address the court with an opening statement before the trial commences. The prosecutor is expected to assist the court in framing accurate charges. The complete power to frame charges rests with the court. But in practice the prosecutor usually submit to the court to frame charges as recommended in the ‘Final Report’. The current structure disables prosecutor's ability to assist the court in either the investigation or the decision to charge. This approach has been criticised by the Supreme Court in Ramnaresh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2016 SCC OnLine MP 838.

The judgement raises the million dollar questions:can Bihar Prosecution Manual, 2003 prevail over High Court's judgments of 1992 and 1996? Can subordinate legislation like the Manual prevail over High Court's judgement? Will the judgement survive even after scrutiny by a larger bench? 

The larger bench will be have the opportunity to establish objective standards and a comprehensive process for appointment of PPs, guide executive direction to appoint special PPs, expand the role of the prosecutor at the pre-trial stage, eliminate executive interference in withdrawal of cases and create a system to ensure prosecutorial accountability. 

Justice Dr. Anshuman sets aside orders by Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation

In Manish Kumar vs.The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Dr. Anshuman delivered a 21-page long judgement dated May 14, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "20. In the present case, although the disagreement note refers to alleged violations of Letter Nos. 11067 dated 12.12.2013, 435 dated 13.01.2014, 7714 dated 06.12.2013, and 1162 dated 26.12.2013, it transpires that all those documents had already been duly considered by the Inquiry Officer, as reflected in paragraph 9 of the inquiry report. However, the Disciplinary Authority has failed to assign any specific or cogent reason as to why it disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. This Court has also examined the deed of agreement and deed of pledge referred to in Letter No. 435 dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and finds that the conclusions drawn by the Inquiry Officer are in accordance with law. In the absence of any specific indication of violation in the disagreement note, this Court holds that the disagreement memo dated 11.03.2025 is legally unsustainable and suffers from material defects as well as in gross violation of Rule 18 of the CCA Rules, 2005." 

The other three respondents were: 2. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, 3. The Under Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, and  4. Managing Director, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation (BSFCSC).  

The judgement reads:"....upon perusal of the order of punishment contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025, it is evident that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the second show-cause notice has not been duly considered. A mere statement that the reply has been “analysed” by a quasi-judicial authority, without any discussion or reasoning, does not satisfy the requirement of law. Accordingly, the said order of punishment is held to be bad in law and liable to be set aside."

Justice Dr. Anshuman observed: "22. Since the disagreement memo itself is vitiated in law, and the order of punishment is based upon such defective disagreement, the consequential order passed by the Reviewing Authority also cannot be sustained, as it is based on proceedings conducted in violation of Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005. Accordingly, both the review order contained in Memo No. 12577 dated 09.07.2025 and the original order of punishment contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025 are hereby set aside." 

The writ petition was filed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Resolution contained in Memo No. 10383 dated 06.06.2025, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of censure (pertaining to the allegation year 2013–14) along with stoppage of one annual increment of salary with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the Resolution contained in Memo No. 12577 dated 09.07.2025, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the review petition preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. The petitioner sought a direction upon the respondent authorities to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner with effect from the due date, including promotion, to which the petitioner is legally entitled. The petitioner had prayed for issuance of any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as the Hig Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

From a plain reading of these provisions, it was evident that the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to assign reasons for disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer.

May Day, Labour Codes, Tribunalisation of Judiciary and Workers Unrest

Buried within the general phenomenon of democratic decline is a set of cases in which charismatic new leaders are elected by democratic publics and then use their electoral mandates to dismantle by law the constitutional systems they inherited. These leaders aim to consolidate power and to remain in office indefinitely, eventually eliminating the ability of democratic publics to exercise their basic democratic rights, to hold leaders accountable, and to change their leaders peacefully. Because these legalistic autocrats" deploy the law to achieve their aims, impending autocracy may not be evident at the start. 

-Kim Lane Scheppelet in "Autocratic Legalism", The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (March 2018), pp. 545-584

Chairing the symposium on May Day, senior advocate and president of Advocates  Association Yogesh Chandra Verma, member, Bihar State Bar Council reminded all as to "why the day is celebrated in the memory of workers all over USA who took to the streets to demand a better working conditions and 8-hour work day, which paved the way for enactment of laws for the protection of workers rights across the world including India. In Chicago’s Haymarket Square too there were demonstrations of the working-class which lasted for days ended in tragedy." 

Dr Gopal Krishna, an advocate and researcher delivered his talk on the subject of the symposium. He recollected the blood-soaked journey of the struggle for labour laws which reached a penultimate point on May 1, 1886, when police killed a large number of workers and executed four of the movement’s most prominent leaders including August Spies, the trade unionist.  

 

Notably, during his trial August Spies said:If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement — the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil and live in want and misery, the wage slaves, expect salvation — if this is your opinion, then hang us! Here you will tread upon a spark, but here, and there and behind you, and in front of you, and everywhere the flames will blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out. The ground is on fire upon which you stand." The subsequent May Days became an occasion for workers across the world come on the streets to contest the anti-labour laws and contracts. Through its struggle the labour movement gained the right to the eight-hour day, which is under attack. 

In India, the first official Labor Day (May Day) demonstration was held in Madras on May 1, 1923. The event was organized by the Labour Kisan Party of Hindustan led by the prominent leader and advocate Malayapuram Singaravelu Chettiar at Marina Beach and the beach opposite the Madras High Court to demand an 8-hour workday and official national holidays for laborers.

Dr. Krishna said: "This year the May Day in the country was celebrated in the backdrop of workers' unprecedented protest in India's National Capital Region wherein, workers from 83 factories protested against the 12-hour, 7-day working week, and unsafe working conditions."

Advocates who graced the occasion of May Day with their presence included: senior advocate Dr. Raja Ram Rai, Yogesh Chandra Verma, Uday Pratap Singh, Bindu, Ram Jiban Prasad Singh,  Manju Sharma, Manish, Dr. Gopal Krishna, Jnan Chandra Bhardwaj, Pooja, Rashmi and Jnan Chandra Bhardwaj, Angad, Manil Lal, Sanjana, Rajan Kumar and Vishal Kumar Arya.       

Most of these workers work on a monthly wage of Rs.11,000 to Rs.12,000. Uttar Pradesh governments like other State governments was required to notify revised wage rates and dearness allowance (DA) rates from time to time but the State government has not revised rates for last 12 years. For four full days, from April 9 to 13, 2026, the  workers owned the roads. The State police cracked down on union leaders of major central trade unions and several activists and several leaders were placed under house arrest from April 9 onwards. On April 10, 2026, thousands of garment workers at the Phase 2 Hosiery Complex, Noida walked away from their jobs. The workers demanded a minimum basic wage of Rs 20,000 for an 8-hour day. The sought parity with Haryana’s recently notified wage revision, and an end to the contract labour system. The worker's strike reached Motherson Group and Richa Global Exports by the end of the third day. More than 42,000 workers protested across 83 locations in Noida, Greater Noida and Faridabad on by April 14. Hundreds of 300 people were arrested. Dr. Krishna referred to the forced disappearance of workers and deaths in factories. Not a week passes without news about deaths of workers and migrant workers. He underlined that soldiers, police and security force employees are also workers in the uniform.  Commenting on the new four labour codes, he pointed out how role of courts have been undermined. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 which came into force on November 21, 2025 has effectively abolished Labour Courts. It has created one-window adjudication forum at the Industrial Tribunal level. Notably, a notification released on December 8, 2025 by the Union Ministry of Labour and Employment, called the Industrial Relations (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2025, revealed the institutional vaccum, by permitting existing Labour Courts to continue till the operationalisation of the new Tribunals. Union Ministry of Labour and Employment made a claim that "The Labour Codes do not abolish Labour Courts, they transform them into Industrial Tribunals to ensure faster and more efficient access to justice for workers." This claim is an admission that tribunalisation of courts is being naturalised. 

 

Union Ministry of Labour and Employment would do well to pay heed to Supreme Court's decision dated November 19, 2025 in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2026), wherein, the Court concluded:" 151. We direct that unless the constitutional concerns repeatedly highlighted by this Court in the series of tribunal-related judgments are fully addressed and cured, and unless Parliament enacts an appropriate legislation that faithfully gives effect to those principles, the principles and directions laid down in MBA (IV) and MBA (V) shall continue to govern all matters relating to the appointment, qualifications, tenure, service conditions, and allied aspects concerning tribunal members and chairpersons. These judgments represent the binding constitutional standards necessary to preserve judicial independence and to ensure that tribunals function as effective and impartial adjudicatory bodies. Accordingly, they shall operate as the controlling framework. 152. As consistently directed in the earlier judgments of this Court, the executive bears a constitutional obligation to establish a National Tribunals Commission in accordance with the principles and framework articulated therein. The creation of such a commission is an essential structural safeguard designed to ensure independence, transparency, and uniformity in the appointment, administration, and functioning of tribunals across the country. The repeated judicial insistence on this body reflects the Court’s recognition that piecemeal reforms cannot remedy the systemic deficiencies that have persisted for decades. 153. We grant the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission. The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system." MBA refers to Madras Bar Association. 

 

Supreme Court struck down the provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 because it re-enacted provisions previously struck down provisions, overriding binding judicial precedents in the cases of Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India (2021) and Madras Bar Association. vs. Union of India (2022). The provision of Labour Tribunals is likely to meet the same fate. 

In the backdrop of such acts of commissions and commissions and the worker's historic unrest, the joint statement dated April 28, 2026 issued by The Platform of Central Trade Unions (CTUs) and Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) assumes huge significance. It reads: "The joint meeting of CTUs and SKM held on 24th April took note that minimum wages have not been revised in many states for the last 10 years despite the price rise in basic essentials. In most industrial hubs, contract, casual, or fixed-term workers are migrant workers living in precarious conditions devoid of basic amenities. They are not allowed to form unions and are victimised if they attempt unionisation." 

The CTU-SKM statement noted that "the series of spontaneous worker agitations were not isolated incidents. Just two months ago, thousands of contract workers in the Baruni refinery areas in Bihar resorted to agitation. Most of them were kept on contract, lived with the threat of losing their jobs if they raised their voices, yet they took to the streets demanding justice: an eight-hour work day, double overtime wages for extra hours worked, increased minimum wages, workplace safety and dignity, leave equivalent to regular workers, social security, job cards, and pay slips. Thereafter thousands of workers agitated in Panipat, again on the same demands which also included a raise in the city's grade for wage calculations. Then followed similar protests in Surat, where several thousand workers took to the streets for agitation on similar demands; most of these workers were migrants from other states. The workers came out at their respective factory gates in Manesar, Haryana, demanding a raised minimum wage as per the recommendation of the state minimum wage board constituted after a ten-year gap. Other issues included working hours, overtime, workplace safety, no ill-treatment of workers, and basic amenities. Despite the trade  union joint council meeting with labour department officials in Manesar to support the workers’  demands for early resolution, the police lathi-charged the workers and arrested hundreds, imposing serious charges. It is only after massive struggles did the Haryana Government say they will implement what it has notified. The notification is for a lower amount than there commendation of the state Minimum Wage Board. Workers from several factories in Noida followed suit, demanding a raise in minimum wage, 8 hours of work, double overtime wages for extra work, social security, basic amenities,leave, and no harassment. It should be noted that no revision of minimum wage  took place in UP since 2012 despite the immense rise in the cost of basic essential goods and services.The workers’ protest regarding life and death questions for their families was met with a brute police force, several hundreds were arrested, beaten and injured. Families were left wondering where to find them. Serious charges were imposed on them and bail was denied....Soon after, workers in Bhiwadi and Neemrana also protested at factory gates on similar demands, they were attacked by hooligans in addition to the police." 

The statement noted: "This trend is growing and catching up in other cities as well. It reflects the reality that if the labour codes are implemented to contain and cripple the unions, the Government will be responsible for the threat to industrial peace. Meanwhile, an exodus of workers toward their hometowns is being witnessed as they find ithard to live on low wages amid the sudden increase in fuel prices due to West-Asian developments and the Central Government total failure to check and prevent black marketingof cooking gas and inflation of essential commodities. CTUs and SKM deplore and reject the narrative spread by the Minister of labour in UP and the Police Administration....The Noida Police putting activists and trade union leaders under “House Arrest” is illegalsince there is no explicit provision for “House Arrest” in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)or the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BSS).  All political parties must oppose and rally against the illegal House Arrests, which amount to the murder of democracy and suppression of the constitutional right to protest. The central trade unions have repeatedly stated that labour law violations are common at workplaces, inspections do not take place, and apart from overwork and non-payment,workplace safety is compromised, resulting in the loss of precious lives and many workers losing their work capacities."

It pointed out: "Union formation is not allowed and those who attempt to unionize lose their jobs, in effect, there is a total denial of labour rights, absence of social dialogue and collective bargaining. Instead of addressing these issues raised on several occasions the central government introduced four draconian labour codes to legalise violations, finishing 15 central labour laws and repealing another 29 central laws to convert them into Four labour codes. These codes are to push the labour force to slavery, increased working hours, literally ending right tostrike, fix term employment as a norm, no job security, with threshold increased throwing out the protected workers also out of the labour law protections, unionisation a difficult process and de-registration and de-recognition very easy, end to inspection and proposals of Facilitators to facilitate the employers/businesses etc. 

The joint statement reads: "The joint meeting observed that what the nation witnessed in these three months is the desperation of workers, which leads to unrest when the industry does not allow unions andno dialogue occurs, disturbing industrial peace. The CTUs reiterate the demand to scrap the four labour codes and urge the Government to urgently call the Indian Labour Conference(ILC), India's top-level tripartite body, which last met in 2015 in New Delhi. The joint meeting asserted that workers will never allow to abolish the Constitutional rights for unionisation and collective bargaining."

Across the world, it is evident that if autocratic lawmaking and law enforcement is deemed natural. Unjust laws are no laws. They are not natural. Notorious laws and judgements do not survive for long because they are unnatural. 

Aesthetics of Jurisprudence, its relation with Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram and Justice

Advocate for Justice organised a discussion on "Aesthetics of Jurisprudence" (न्याय शास्त्र का सौंदर्यबोध) at Patna High Court on May 14, 2026 in the evening hours. The discussion was chaired by senior advocate Yogesh Chandra Verma, member, Bihar State Bar Council and president, Advocates Association. Speaking on the occasion, he said, justice refers to a keen sense of fairness and truthfulness. But courts are unable to reach truth. What is approved by the majority may appear to be justice but unless everyone is taken along, the quest for real truth and justice will remain unfulfilled. The discussion was  moderated by Advocate-poet Ranjit Verma who has authored anthology of poems like पीछे न छोड़ते निशान (2002), एक चुप के साथ (2010), लकीर कहीं एक खिंचनी होगी आपको (2015), यह रक्त से भरा समय है (2022), मुझे तुम वहाँ ढूँढो (2025), wrote बलात्कार और क़ानून (2007) and has edited प्रतिरोध का पक्ष (2016) and  प्रतिरोध में कविता (2021). In his opening remarks, he observed, "sense of justice is linked with class consciousness. Its meaning is dependent on one's class location." He invited Dr. Gopal Krishna, an advocate and researcher of law, philosophy and mass communication to introduce the subject of the discussion. 

Introducing the subject, Dr. Krishna, recalled the significance of Satyam Shivam Sundaram. The excerpts from his presentation are reproduced: Satyam refers to what "is". Shivam refers to all that is good. Sundaram refers to flowering of pure consciousness. He referred to the judgement dated October 26, 1979 by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer of the Supreme Court of India in Raj Kapoor & Ors. vs. State, wherein the Court observed:"Surely, the satwa of society must rise progressively if mankind is to move towards its timeless destiny and this can be guaranteed only if the ultimate value-vision is rooted in the unchanging basics, Truth-Goodness-Beauty, Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram." Satyam, Shivam, Sundaram was also one of the movies by Raj Kapoor, the legendry filmmaker. The conception of beauty in Natya Shastra, the fifth Veda by Bharat Muni underlines that beauty is aligned with rasa, essence and bhava, feeling. The observation of the Supreme Court in Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand (1977), wherein, the Court said,"Truth like song, is whole and half-truth can be noise. Justice is truth, is beauty and the strategy of healing injustice is discovery of the whole truth" makes it amply clear that there is a relationship between sense of beauty, goodness and justice.     

The ugly judgements of US and Indian Supreme Courts illustrate poverty of sense of beauty. The infamous decision of the US Supreme Court in Dred Scott vs. John Sandford (1857), wherein, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that enslaved people were not citizens of the USA. Therefore, they could not expect any protection from the federal government or the courts. It also stated that US legislature had no authority to ban slavery from a federal territory. The notorious decisions of U.S. Supreme Court in Buck vs. Bell (1927), in which, it had upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization laws for individuals deemed "genetically unfit". The 8-1 decision endorsed the eugenics movement in the USA. These decisions have been cited in the Indian Supreme Court's judgement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017), the Aadhaar Number Online Database related case with strong disapproval.  

Referring to the ugliest decision of the Supreme Court of India in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla AIR 1976 SC 1207, Dr. Krishna pointed out that the 9-Judge Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) overruled its 1976 judgment, wherein, the Court observed:"In IR Coelho v State of Tamil Nadu, this Court took the view that ADM Jabalpur has been impliedly overruled by various subsequent decisions. We now expressly do so.” In his concurring opinion as part of the 90Judge Bench, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed: “I fully agree with the view expressly overruling the ADM Jabalpur case which was an aberration in the constitutional jurisprudence of our country and the desirability of burying the majority opinion ten fathoms deep, with no chance of resurrection.” In the ADM Jabalpur case, the Court had grappled with the question as to whether individuals who had been preventively detained by the State had the right to approach the Courts in a habeas corpus petition. The Court held that when there was Presidential proclamation of a State of Emergency, it suspended the right of all individuals to move the Courts for legal remedy, if case they were detained. The Supreme Court by majority held that the Presidential Proclamation had validly suspended the remedy of habeas corpus under the Constitution. The Presidential Proclamation acted as a complete bar to exercising the fundamental right to life and liberty. A detained person was denied the right to approach the Courts on the ground that his detention was illegal or unconstitutional. The utter lack of sense of beauty and justice among the authors of the judgement, make it a text book lesson on how how not to write judgements. 

Diotima, the lady teacher of Socrates had taught beauty and justice to him. Her lesson was that there cannot be any sense of justice without a sense of beauty. Our first introduction to good and bad and right and wrong is not based on statutes and ethics. It is based on sense of ephemeral and transcendental beauty imparted to us by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, relatives of myriad shades and friends of all hues.  

In Om Prakash vs. Union of India 2025 INSC 43, Justice M.M. Sundresh observed:"Truth is the foundation of justice." He added:"Justice is nothing but a manifestation of truth." It has been held that "The Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools."

When advocates and judges read the silence of the constitution and statutes, they hear what has not been said. They read what is not written. Such hearing and reading is possible only when there is a sense of truth, goodness and justice. 

Speaking on the presentation, advocate Jnana Chandra Bhardwaj said, nature of truth changes with the passage of time. Jaishankar Singh, General secretary, Advocates Association underlined the significance of inner beauty which gets missed by those obsessed with external beauty. Advocate Rahman said, "when truthful person speaks, one can get a glimpse of truth. Institutions like judiciary too can become beautiful. There is no beauty in unilateralism." Snehlata, a student of law dwelt on the connection between beauty, truth and justice. She raised the question about superficiality of judgements. Advocate Mumtaz Uddin emphasized that truth is universal and unchanging. Justice can be beautiful.

 

Responding to these observations, Dr. Krishna expressed his agreement with most of the insights shared by the discussants. He asserted that truth is eternal. Non-reasoned orders and judgements are ugly. Their authors seems to be devoid of sense of truth, justice and beauty. Referring to ugly laws and decisions, he cited a decision by Justice I.A. Ansari, who later became the 39th chief justice of Patna High Court, Dr. Krishna recalled the issue of Supreme Court's unreasoned stay order on the 89-page long reasoned judgement dated November 6, 2013 by Justice Ansari as part of Gauhati High Court's Division Bench comprising of Justice Dr. (Mrs.) Indira  Shah in Navendra Kumar vs. Union of India & Anr. (2013). Justice Ansari has held that the resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which constituted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), is non est in law. The High Court also held that the resolution was not traceable to Section 2 of Delhi Special Police Establishment (DPSE) Act, 1946, which empowers the union government to constitute a special police force for a union territory. In any case the Parliament did not have any legislative competence to constitute a police force, traceable to Entry 8 and Entry 80 of List I of the Constitution of India. The creation of CBI through a notification cannot be constitutionally justified. But the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment. It has not been able hear the case since then.  

 

Dr. Krishna observed that as a consequence such indulgence and deference towards the Union Executive, the Union of India has enacted several laws which empowers it to investigate and prosecute for penal offences although the Constitution of India does not permit the Union to create institutions to carry out investigation outside the territorial limit of union territory. Law and order is a State subject, not a subject of the Union under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It is the primary duty of the State Governments to prevent, detect, register and investigate crime and prosecute the criminals. The sweeping investigative powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or BNSS can only be granted by a formal legislative statute, making the executive resolution regarding creation of CBI ultra vires. 

 

Because the unconstitutionality of CBI remained uncontested for long, National Security Ordinance was promulgated on September 23, 1980 and the National Security Act (NSA) became a permanent part of law from December 27, 1980 and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 was enacted to set up the NIA as the nation’s first apex agency to investigate and prosecute offences related to terrorism. The constitutionality of the NSA was challenged in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India (1981) on the ground that it is a draconian law that places arbitrary and excessive powers in the hands of the executive. The petitioner thus contended that the Act was violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution without success. The NIA Act was amended in 2019 amendment to expand the ambit of the law to offences such as human trafficking, manufacture and sale of prohibited arms, cyber-terrorism and others. Besides these the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 too was amended in 2019 to bestow power to NIA officers to conduct raids and seize properties of suspected terrorists although several of its provisions contravene many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The primary aim of the NIA was to assist State police in terror cases and maintain law and order. It is clear that NIA has taken charge of the working of State police for certain crimes in breach of the constitutional provision. Section 3(1) of the NIA Act establishes a police force to investigate offences. Section 6 gives it suo moto power to take up cases without any prior consent of the State in any part of India. NIA has been empowered to investigate offences which come under Scheduled offences of the Act. Section 6(6) directs that if any direction is given under the sections mentioned above, then state police shall not proceed with the investigation and transmit the case to NIA. Section 7 and 9 of the Act gives NIA the discretion to decide when to take assistance from state police and when to transfer the case to the State police. These provisions encroach upon the constitutional rights of the State. It is not surprising that the Chhattisgarh government filed a petition in the Supreme Court contending that NIA is constitutionally invalid and its enactment goes beyond the legislative competence of the Parliament. On April 21, 2026, Supreme Court issued notice after admitting a PIL challenging the NIA law as arbitrary, lacking in legislative competence and an encroachment on state power. 

 

Can several wrongs transform wrongs like CBI, NSA and NIA into a right? Will a day come when the Court will have the philosophical and jurisprudential will and courage to pass a reasoned order, either to vacate it's stay order or to uphold the reasoned judgement by Justice Ansari? The fact is that the stay order is as ugly as the Court's judgment in ADM Jabalpur vs. Shivkant Shukla (1976), Dred Scott vs. John Sandford (1857),  and Buck vs. Bell (1927).

Advocates Neeraj Kumar, Dr. Raja Ram Rai, Ugresh Kumar, Bhubneshwar Mahto, Amit Maharaj, Rajeev Ranjan, Tanay Bhaskar, Arvind Singh, Najmal Hoda and Rahamatullah and several other advocates graced the occasion. Advocate-poet Ranjit Verma concluded the discussion after sharing details about Advocate for Justice and the future initiatives of the forum.