Justice Raj Kumar delivers his first judgement, reiterates "right to shelter as a fundamental right under Article 21"

In Asharfi Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Raj Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a-26 page long judgement dated August 10, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"33. Since right to shelter is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and Article 300A protects the property of individuals from interference in the peaceful possession of the land they rightfully claim, such as passing of orders for removal of encroachment in khatiyani land, without following the due process and valid service of notice, as also examine each case in terms of the guidelines prescribed under paras 28 to 30 hereinabove. Non-compliance with the same may warrant liability upon the State or its instrumentalities, of payment of due compensation for the damages done by illegal demolitions or excesses resulting from the arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities. The quantum and the mode of payment of compensation, however, have to be determined on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding each case. 34. The application stands allowed in view of the observations made hereinabove.35. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX/Email to District Magistrates of all the districts of Bihar through Registrar General, Patna High Court." This is the first judgement authored by Justice Kumar after he joined as the judge of the High Court on June 15, 2026. 

The other five respondents were: 2. The Collector, Madhubani, 3. The Deputy Collector Land Revenue, Madhubani, 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas, Madhubani, 5. The Circle officer, Lokahi, Madhubani and 6. Renu Yadav, a resident of Singarahi, Lokahi, Madhubani.  The judgement recorded that although notices were  issued to respondent no. 6 namely Renu Yadav but she chose not to appear before the Court.

Justice issues the following Guidelines/Directions: "26. This Court is in seisin of this roster for the past few months has come across numerous matters arising out of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, wherein most of the matters are either pending before the concerned authorities empowered under the Act or long pending before this Hon’ble High Court. It would not be out of place to mention that the proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, cannot be initiated against the raiyati lands and the same can only be initiated in cases of encroachment over public land as defined under section 2(3) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. In this vein, it is of utmost importance to reiterate that persons having bona fide rights, title or interest in their lands shall not be subjected to suffering without any reason. Despite this being the position, in most cases, disputes regarding the petitioners' right, title, and interest in the raiyati lands arise. This, in turn, gives rise to piecemeal litigation at every stage of the proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It would not be untrue to state that such a phenomenon not only causes agony and harassment to the parties but also incessantly piles on and increases the burden on the Courts and the State, and unnecessarily gives rise to litigation that could very well be concluded by adhering to the statutory mechanism enshrined under the Act of 1956 (Supra). Hence, it would be in consonance with the objectives enshrined under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, that concerned authorities be directed to curtail unscrupulous and frivolous complaints, tainted with high-handedness, obliqueness or untowardness, made under section 3(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Many writ applications are preferred by the parties assailing the notice directing to remove encroachment or notice to show cause as to why encroachments should not be removed, issued under section 3(1) of the Act, passed at the preliminary stage itself, while other applications even though preferred seeking the quashing of the final orders passed by the concerned
authorities under section 6 (1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, are preferred without exhausting the remedy of appeal enshrined under section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, or remedy of review under section 13 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, as applicable. This Court, hence, has deemed it necessary and fit that, unless and until definitive guidelines are issued in this regard, such events shall continue to plague the administration of justice. The proposed guidelines are enumerated as follows-
I. Section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, deals with the initiation of proceedings under the Act, and states that upon the receipt of any application/information by any person/source, alleging that public land as defined under section 2(3) of the Act, has been encroached by any person, the Collector/in most cases the Circle Officer is obligated to formulate a prima facie view and issue a notice to show cause against the person requiring him to appear on a date which shall not be less than two weeks from the date of service of notice to show cause:-
(a) Why he should not be restrained from making such encroachment by the issue of injunctions; or
(b) Why such encroachment should not be removed.
II. According to Section 4 of the Act, after such notice is served upon the persons or any person interested in the encroachment, they have to appear and raise their defence before the Circle Officer/Collector, as the case may be.
III. Following which, under Section 5 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, the Circle Officer/Collector hears the parties concerned on the date so specified in the notice, and takes such other evidence as may be adduced on that behalf.
IV. Section 6(1) of the Act stipulates that the Collector shall, after hearing the persons concerned and taking evidence, if any, under section 5 and after making such enquiry as he deems necessary, the Collector may, 
a. either drop the proceedings, or 
b. issue a temporary injunction or
c.if any person who, together with his homestead, does not own more than 5 acres of land, has encroachment up to 10 dec. of public land continuous to his agricultural holding and has used the encroached public land for agricultural purposes. The collector shall order the settlement of such public land with such person on payment of rent and damages for the use of this land, or 
d. where the temporary encroachment on public land has been removed by the person making the encroachment, after some time, the Collector shall order payment of damages for the use of the land during the period of encroachment, or
e. in the cases not covered by the foregoing sub- clauses, the Collector shall direct the person making encroachment of the public land to remove the encroachment within a specified period, which shall not in any case be more than two weeks in case the encroachment is not removed within the specified time the
crops standing or all types of structures existing on the encroached land shall be forfeited by the Collector.
 

Justice Kumar observed; "27. This Court is of the opinion that in most of the writ applications preferred before this Hon’ble Court, orders passed under Sections 6(1) (e), 3(1) of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, are brought under challenge. 28. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that, when the concerned authorities, be it the Circle Officer or the Collector, form a prima facie view under section 3 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, they must call for and take cognizance of the following records by takingrecourse to the powers enshrined under section 10 of the Act which stipulates that the Circle Officer/Collector for the purposes of enquiries under this Act, shall have powers to issue commission, hold local inspection, summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of documents as a Civil Court under the CPC, 1908, mentioned herein under:-
a. jamabandi,
b. khatiyan,
c. register-II entries,
d. decrees passed in title/partition suits or any other suit for declaration of title concerning the parties,
e. settlements of gairmazura aam/khas made by the erstwhile Maharajas, or those by ex-landlords or by parwanas, or 
f. settlements made through pattas of gairmazura aam/khas or
g. settlements made under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act or
h. settlements made under any other law in force in India at the time, during the conduct of the hearing as prescribed under sections 4 and 5 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and record a definitive finding as to whether a bona fide dispute exists regarding the nature of the land between the parties. 

If such a query is answered in the positive, such cases shall not be subjected to the proceedings made under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, and the same could be resolved in the manner as provided below-

a. In case the dispute arises on account of the claim of jamabandi which has been created recently, the State, if so advised, under section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, shall submit an application before the addl. Collector, for the cancellation of the disputed jamabandi; or, 
b. In case the dispute arises on account of the claim of a long-standing jamabandi, if the same is supported by substantial documents proving such right, title or interest in the land tendered by the petitioner before the concerned authorities, the same shall be treated as a bona fide dispute and the onus to disprove the same shall be upon the state by filing of a civil suit before a court of competent jurisdiction seeking a cancellation of the settlement/jamabandi, or 
c. However, in cases where no documents have been tendered by the petitioner in support of the claimed right, title or interest in land, then the onus to prove that such a title validly exists shall lie upon the petitioner, and they shall be directed to move before a civil court of competent jurisdiction, seeking a declaration of the claimed rights/title/interests, or 
d. In this vein, the Court is of the opinion that while giving effect to this guideline, every case has to be answered based on the attribution of onus to prove the title as the case may be or to prove that a title does not exist, and onus has to be attributed based on the facts and circumstances surrounding each and every case.

The judgement reads:" 29. It is further reiterated that on a plain reading of Section 4 (g) & (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, it is amply clear that the Collector, under sub-section (g), if of the opinion that the State is entitled to direct the possession of any property, he shall pass an order requiring the person upon whom any estate or tenure is so vested to show cause within a reasonable period of time and subsequently under sub-section (h) shall have the power to annul any transfer including any settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure and dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property as he may deem fair and equitable. However, the same shall not be applicable to transfers, including settlements or leases of any land appertaining to any tenure or estate made before the 1st of January 1946, in favour of the person claiming interest in such estate or lease or settlement. 30. The concerned authorities under section 3(1) of the Act, upon the receipt of a complaint or an application, as the case may be, from any person regarding the existence of encroachment over public land, shall verify the veracity of the same and if the authority so empowered, upon examination thereof, is of the opinion that such a complaint is directed towards making some untoward gain or profit or is preferred to achieve an ulterior motive, the authority shall record such reasons in writing and proceed against such person under the provision of section 248 of the BNS, 2023."

The judgement reads: "31. This Court further deems it proper in the interests of justice to observe that writ applications preferred assailing the notice to file a show cause issued under section 3 (1) of the Act or those assailing a final order passed under section 6(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, without exhausting the remedy of appeal as enshrined under section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, as a general rule are discouraged since the Legislature has already established the mechanism of availing of a statutory remedy in the form of an appeal under the Act. Moreover, it is made clear that persons to whom show cause notices have been issued under section 3(1) of the Act have to mandatorily file their reply and show cause before the authorities, and no writ applications assailing the notice to show cause issued under section 3(1) of the Act shall be preferred. However, that is not to say that a writ applicant aggrieved by the said orders is completely deprived of his liberty to approach this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226. They may still approach this Hon’ble Court without exhausting the remedy of an appeal under the Act or assailing any proceedings initiated under this Act, if there exists a violation of principles of natural justice, any patent illegality or any error of law on the face of the record or any longstanding settlements of the land in question, that warrants the exercise of the extraordinary powers of the writ court under Article 226. 32. These directions are being given for the dispensation of justice and to simplify the procedure so that a genuine person with absolute Rights/Titles over their lands are not unnecessarily harassed and disturbed, especially in cases where there is a serious dispute with respect to title of the property in question, and the concerned authorities, if unable to tender a definitive conclusion about the rival claims made in respect of such property, cannot proceed for removal of encroachment/demolition of the dwelling house of persons without following due procedure prescribed by law, including the valid service of notice and hearing the parties in question and adjudicating the issue."

The application was filed by the petitioner seeking relief in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated November 18, 2014 passed by the Collector in an Encroachment Appeal whereby the Collector, Madhubani had rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated May 5, 2014 passed by the Circle Officer, wherein, the Circle Officer had directed removal of the encroachment over Plot No. 1099 measuring 6 Dhurs in Amarpura, Lokahi, Madhubani within a period of 15 days. The petitioner had prayed for quashing of the final order dated May 5, 2014 passed by the Circle Officer wherein the petitioner was directed to remove the encroachment on the aforesaid land within a period of 15 days. The petitioner had also prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders. 

Prior to the adjudication by Justice Kumar, this case was heard by Justice Jyoti Saran of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court which had passed a 4-page long order dated February 20, 2015 to stay on the operation of the order dated November 18, 2014 passed by the Collector, Madhubani in the Encroachment Appeal as well as the notice issued pursuant thereto by the Circle Officer dated December 8, 2014 saying, "let no steps be taken by the statutory authorities under the Act pursuant to the said orders."

The matter is that prior to the vesting of Zamindari, a land measuring an area of 3 Katthas, appertaining to Khesra No. 1099, Khata No. 275, situated at Amarpura was settled in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather, namely, Babu Lal Gope by the erstwhile Maharaja of Darbahanga, on July 20, 1926, almost 100 years ago and since then the petitioner’s family are in continuous and peaceful possession of the aforesaid land. Besides, it was also the case of the petitioner that a Jamabandi was created in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner and till date the revenue rent was paid to the government up to the year 2013-14. It was the case of petitioner that they are residing in the dwelling house over their share of the above land. On September 11, 2013, on the basis of complaint made by one Renu Yadav (respondent No. 6), the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phulparas, Madhubani (respondent no. 4) directed the Circle Officer to conduct an enquiry and proceed in the matter and accordingly. Renu Yadav, the respondent no. 6 filed a writ application bearing CWJC No. 3050/2014 (Renu Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) (2014) seeking a direction upon the respondent-authorities to remove the encroachment over the land, in question. The same was disposed of by the order dated February 7, 2014 of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullaha of the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents-authorities to ensure the removal of encroachment within a period of three months after hearing the parties in question. Consequently, the Circle Officer, Lokahi, Madhubani (respondent no. 5) initiated a Encroachment Case, issued notice to the petitioner under Section 3(1) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, directing him to appear before him on May 5, 2014 and also to file reply to the show-cause of the writ application. The petitioner appeared before the respondent-Circle Officer on May 5, 2014, filed his reply to show-cause contending that he was not an encroacher and as such Jamabandi in the name of the grandfather of the petitioner was running over the land in question bearing Jamabandi No. 258, which petitioner at this point has stated was carved out of Jamabandi No. 275. Despite the reply to the show-cause having been filed by the petitioner on May 5, 2014 the respondent no. 5-Circle Officer passed a final order on the same day, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment from the public land within 15 days of the passing of such order.

Aggrieved by the order of Justice Amanullaha, the petitioner approached the High Court in CWJC No. 9357/2014 Aashrafi Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2014) which was disposed of by Justice Samrendra Pratap Singh of a coordinate bench of the High Court vide an order dated May 27, 2014, whereby liberty was given to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Accordingly, petitioner had thereafter filed an Encroachment Appeal under Section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, before the respondent no. 2-the Collector with the relevant documents as proof showing the land appertaining to Jamabandi No. 275, Khesra No. 1099, measuring an area of 3 Kattha out of gairmazarua Aam Khata, was settled in favour of the petitioner’s ancestor, by the erstwhile Maharaja of Darbhanga, vide settlement deed dated July 20, 1926. It was also stated that Khata No. 352 was created in the name of the grandfather of petitioner, namely, Babu Lal Gope and since then the family of the petitioner is in continuous and peaceful possession of the same. The Appellate Authority/Collector, taking into consideration the entire facts, rejected the claim of the petitioner and affirmed the final order passed by the Circle Officer, on account of a report submitted by the Circle Inspector and rajaswa karmachari that the land appertaining to Khesra No. 1099 has been recorded as ‘gairmazarua aam rasta’ in the survey Khatiyan of kism dagar, upon which the petitioner has constructed a thatched hut. It was also observed by the Collector that the petitioner has failed to prove his title to the land in question by non-submission of the relevant documents regarding the ownership or the alleged settlement. The Appellate order thus confirmed the final order dated May 5, 2014 passed by the concerned respondent no. 5, the Circle Officer.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the settlement was made in the year 1926, whereafter Jamabandi was created in favour of the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Babu Lal Gope, and since then they are in possession of the land in question and even the revenue rents have been paid until 2013-2014, i.e., till the filing of the appeal before the concerned authorities. The petitioner could not be evicted in a summary proceeding initiated under the ‘Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956’, as a long-standing Jamabandi/settlements, having been settled almost 100 years ago, is running, and even if the Jamabandi was disputed, no steps have been taken by the State for the cancellation of the same before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It is settled law that a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, cannot be initiated against the Raiyati land of the petitioner. He also stated that the final order dated May 5, 2014, passed by the Circle Officer is without completing the formalities and due procedure which are to be mandatorily followed under sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. Moreover, under section 10 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers of a civil court and they have been specifically empowered to call for records, admit evidence adduced and tendered, and further to conduct an inquiry, if need be, before forming a prima facie opinion regarding the nature of land, and if the same is found to be a ‘public land’ within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, only then a proceeding under the Act can be instituted. No compliance of the statutory procedure enshrined under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, was done by the Circle Officer. The counsel submitted that the petitioner was asked to file his reply to show-cause by May 5, 2014, by a notice dated April 19, 14. In response thereto, he filed his reply to show cause on May 5, 2014, and a final order was passed by the Circle Officer on the same date. Thus, it would not be erroneous to presume that no inquiry in compliance with the provisions enshrined under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, was conducted nor any evidence was adduced or tendered by the concerned authorities before passing the order. He submitted that both the orders the Circle officer and the Collector are untenable in the eyes of law.

Justice Kumar observed:"The law is very clear in view of a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble High Court that the Bihar Public Land Encroachment, 1956, is only applicable to a public land, and a proceeding under it cannot be initiated over the Raiyati land of the petitioner, especially when they are in possession of the land in question since, last almost 100 years. Law is amply clear that the petitioner could not be evicted in a summary proceeding. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Uma Devi v/s State of Bihar in CWJC No. 9773/2000 dated 05.03.2001, wherein it has been held that when a question of title is involved the proceeding under the land encroachment Act is not the remedy. Remedy is to get rights, title or interest, declared by a competent Court of civil jurisdiction and until that right is so decided, authorities cannot call them into question by initiation of proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act,
1956. 

He relied on Patna High Court's decision May 21, 2026, in Bipin Bihari Verma vs. The State of Bihar (2026), wherein, it has been reiterated that "Long standing Jamabandis cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding. Furthermore, if a Jamabandi is continuing since long time and is disputed by the State, the only forum to challenge the same is by the filing of a civil suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction seeking a cancellation of the Jamabandi." 

Para 33 of the Judgment reads:- “The collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act lacks jurisdiction to dispute settlements made prior to 01.01.1946; the proper remedy for challenging such settlments is to approach a competent civil court for cancellation of the settlement first, and then the Jamabandi- Longstanding Jamabandis cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding; In the opinion of this court also, any Jamabandi created on the basis of a settlement said to have taken place way back prior to vesting of the Jamindari, even if the same was not permissible in law, the same needed to be challlenged either immediately or if with delay then the proper forum of approaching the competent civil court would be the remedy for cancellation of the settlement first and then cancellation of Jamabandi.”

Justice Kumar also referred to para 19 of the decision dated June 18, 2026 in Sunita Rani Sah vs. State of Bihar, in CWJC No. 15484 of 2022. Para 19 reads:“longstanding Jamabandi can not be cancelled”. The only remedy available for the State is to file a civil suit and get a declaration against the party in question.

Justice Kumar observed:"22....this Court is of the opinion that present proceeding which has been initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, against the petitioner is vitiated as the issue of Jamabandi and the settlement of land in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner has not been properly considered by the respondent authorities. Even the contention on behalf of the respondent that wrong Jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioner will not support the case of the State as the same Jamabandi which has been created in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner is still in existence and has not been challenged before any forum by the State up till now. This Court thus holds that Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, shall not apply to Raiyati land settled long back. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities vide order dated 18.11.2014 passed in encroachment appeal No. 10/14-15 and final order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the respondent no. 5/Circle Officer, Madhubani, are hereby quashed. 23. Matter is remanded back to the /respondent no. 5/Circle Officer, Madhubani for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of paras 28 to 30 of this order. 24. The grounds which have been taken by the petitioner regarding the settlement of land and Jamabandi will be examined minutely by the Circle Officer and a prima facie satisfaction with respect to the same shall be recorded, after hearing the parties in accordance with law. 25. The entire exercise by the respondent no. 5/Circle Officer, Madhubani, must be completed within a period of four months from today, till then status quo as of today shall be maintained between the parties."

Thirteen types of cases of State sponsored police brutality witnessed during July 2026 protest by students and youth in Bihar against 11 types of exam paper leaks: PUCL, Bihar

The public hearing commenced with the welcome address by Sumita Jaiswal, a noted journalist. Vandana Prabha, a social science and development researcher invited the jury members, the victims and the student activists for the public hearing. The members included: Padam Shri Sudha Verghese, founder of Nari Gunjan, Ajmal Ahsraf, noted educationist, Basant Chaudhary, senior advocate and Pranav Chaudhary, a veteran journalist. The issue of police brutality in Bihar during late July 2026 was introduced by Kishori Das,former state general secretary of PUCL, Bihar and Dr. Gopal Krishna, advocate, Patna High Court.  Altogether there were sixteen oral testimonies of Saba Karim, Akash Kumar Yadav, Arif, Om Anand Sharma, Ashish, Arun Kumar Ram, Amarjit Kushwaha, ex-MLA, Rishabh Kumar, Aman, Bhagya Shri, Sudhir, Manisha, Dhananjay, Kumar Pervez, Akash Anand and Vishwajeet. There was one video testimony by Bullet Kumar Gond. The public hearing was concluded by Prof. Pushpendra, Vice-President, PUCL who read out a resolution condemning police atrocities, which was endorsed by the participants including Dr Meera Datta, editor, Talash, Vyasji, former additional chief secretary, Bihar, Preeti Sinha, editor, Filhaal, Rishi Anand, social activist, Akankha Malviya, advocate, Patna High Court, Advocate Sachin, Dr. Pawan Sharma, social activist, Ram Avatwar, RTI activist and several other eminent personalities and activists.             

In his introduction to the subject of state sponsored police brutality at the public hearing convened by PUCL at Indian Medical Association (IMA) Hall, Gandhi Maidan, Patna on August 22, 2026, Dr. Gopal Krishna observed that all the districts of the country and the state capitals including Gandhi Maidan, Patna became an extension of protest site at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi against the unprecedented national examination paper leak scam in late July 2026, which led to the resignation of  Dharmendra Pradhan, the union education minister. The students and youth in Bihar were protesting against papers leaks in the state.

Besides the national examination paper leak scam, some 11 major high-profile competitive examination leak scandal came to light. These are:

1. Constable Recruitment Exams: Multiple leaks occurred across recruitment cycles in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023 conducted by the Central Selection Board of Constable (CSBC).

2. BSSC Inter-Level & Clerk Grade Exams: Staff Selection Commission exams have faced widespread protests and cancellations due to leaked question papers.

3. Excise Department Exam: Irregularities and leaks were reported during the 2021–2022 recruitment cycle.

4. BPSC 67th Preliminary Test (2022): The preliminary examination was cancelled after the question paper circulated on social media shortly before exam commencement.

5. Amin Recruitment Exam (2023): Faced cancellation and probes following question paper breaches.

6. NEET Controversies (2023–2024): Investigations by economic offense units tied localized leak syndicates in Patna to wider medical entrance paper distribution.

7. BPSC Teacher Recruitment Exam - TRE (March 2024): The third-phase teacher recruitment exam paper was leaked from a roadside stop, leading to mass arrests of over 300 people and a complete re-examination.

8. Community Health Officer (CHO) Exam (2024/2026): Online computer-based recruitment tests faced cancellation due to widespread irregularities.

9. Assistant Election Development Officer (AEDO)

10. Havildar Instructor Exams (2026): state commission tests (such as the BPSSC Havildar Instructor exam) were postponed following fresh leaks

11. LLB Entrance Exam paper leak (2026) of Patna University   

When students and youth protested, police brutality in the form of the use of undue or unnecessary force came to light. The brutality included harassment, beatings, torture, denial of food, water, hygiene and other forms of violence. Police brutality is always an act of dehumanization. Their dehumanization became evident. 

The following types of cases of State sponsored police brutality has been documented by the team of Peoples Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), Bihar:

1. Brutal lathi charge injuring students and youth.

2. Firing on students and youth resulting in some injuries.

3. Using a lethal firearm, AK-47, on students and youth, putting the lives of protesting students and youth in grave danger.

4. Custodial torture of students and youth by the police, resulting in injuries, loss of hearing, etc.

5. Illegal detention of students and youth without presenting them before a magistrate within 24 hours.

6. Families of detained students and youth were not informed about their whereabouts.

7. Detained students and youth denied access to their family members.

8. Students and youth were sent to judicial custody without informing them of the charges against them or providing them with a copy of the FIR.

9. Students and youth sent to judicial custody without access to a lawyer to defend them before the magistrate.

10. Police destroyed evidence, such as seizing mobile phones of students, youth and passerby citizens to destroy video recordings related to the use of force by them.

11. Raiding students’ and activists’ homes in the dead of night without any search warrant. Beating of residents, damaging household items, abusing women, including older women.

12. Obstructing an advocate on record of the Patna High Court and a law graduate in discharging his duty to represent his client, filing FIRs against two lawyers in unsubstantiated charges of liquor consumption and another charge of obstructing the police officer in discharging their duty, parading them handcuffed in public, and leaking their arrest memo photos to the media.

13. Photos and videos of protesting students and youth were released to media

Human action is deemed sane only if it upholds the other’s human dignity, and police brutality is an explicit rejection of the other, an attempt to assert superiority. The power police have is given to them so they can protect the vulnerable but their violence subverts their role. Aggressive violence is a grave perversion of that role. Everyone deserves to live free from violence, so no one should live in fear of police brutality. By now it is widely known that police brutality is an incredibly common problem. A preliminary analysis of literature on police brutality indicates that it is becoming one of the leading causes of death for young persons.

At the public hearing Dr. Gopal Krishna pointed out that police officers in Bihar in particular and the country in general encounter significant occupational stress due to challenging work conditions, impacting their mental and physical health.

A Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) research study of 2015 has found the deplorable living and working conditions of subordinate police personnel. The study concluded that 90% of constables and Sub Inspectors who constitute the cutting edge of the police force, work for more than 8 hours a day, while nearly 30% of them work for 14 hours on an average. 73% don’t get a weekly off even once a month. Disordered family and social life and lack of a proper work-life balance affects morale, motivation and self-esteem,leading to poor physical and mental health. More than 76% of police personnel have health problems due to standing for long hours, stress, sleep deprivation, irregular eating habits, exposure to heat, dust and noise pollution. The emotional trauma and suicidal tendencies are far higher than in other occupations. Adverse working/living conditions and frustration manifests itself in the form of fatigue, depression, irritability as well as impulsive, offensive, aggressive and high handed behavior with the public. A 2016 BPRD-commissioned fatigue report noted that over 91% of surveyed police persons suffered from job-related fatigue.

Another 2022 study by Prof. Monika Agrawal and Ritika Mahajan shows most of the police officers (73 percent) showed signs of poor mental health.

A study, Stress and Coping Mechanisms Among Police Officers in Bihar: A study published in January 2025 surveyed 200 police personnel across various ranks in Bihar  It highlights that heavy workloads, tough work environments, and organizational pressures are primary drivers of chronic stress. It is published in Volume 11 Issue 8 of International Journal Of Innovative Research In Technology in January 2025.

It's key findings revealed that long working hours and exposure to traumatic events  are the most significant stressors among Bihar police officers. It is taking its toll. While physical exercise and social support are common coping strategies, a notable percentage of officers resort to alcohol consumption, indicating the presence of maladaptive coping mechanisms.

The findings align with studies conducted in North India, which identify similar stressors and coping  strategies among police personnel.

It concluded: “Police officers in Bihar experience high levels of occupational stress, primarily due to long working hours and exposure to traumatic events. While many adopt healthy coping mechanisms, the reliance on maladaptive strategies such as alcohol consumption is concerning. Implementing targeted stress management interventions is essential to enhance the well-being and effectiveness of these officers.”

Dr. Krishna observed: “Violence begins in false conditioned consciousness, peace must be built in true unconditioned consciousness, veil of ignorance must of removed to ensure that shared consciousness is regained, which alone can give birth to sense of human dignity and solidarity. All cruelty begins with dehumanization—not seeing the face of the other, not seeing the whole humanity of the other.” He wondered: “Why is police being militarized? Militarization encourages a mentality that police officers are an occupying force rather than an agency meant to protect and serve. Dealing with protest of fellow citizens is not the same as dealing with crime, it is not war, and it should not be treated as such.”

Jean-Paul Brodeur, in his book, The Policing Web (2010) wrote: “Policing agents are part of several connected organizations authorized to use in more or less controlled ways diverse means, generally prohibited by statute or regulation to the rest of the population, in order to enforce various types of rules and customs that promote a defined order in society, considered in its whole or in some of its parts.” He identifies the ability to use means that are usually denied to others. He is referring not only to physical force but also to other means that are available to the police, such as profiling and surveillance, that are otherwise prohibited. From this premise, Brodeur developed a theory of policing that is founded on the concept of legal lawlessness, or the ability to legally use a range of otherwise illegal means. Fabien Jobard  explained this concept as “the ability to legally infringe on the shared law” in his “Proposition on the Theory of Policing” (2012).  The use of force is still a potent symbol of the exceptional nature of police work.  Indian state needs to closely examine the idea that the ultimate aim of the police and their use of force is to enforce the law. If it does not do so, it creates a situation where citizens become victims of what has been referred to as “lawless laws”.  

Dr. Krishna referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Union of India & Ors. (2026), wherein, the Court’s 3-Judge Bench has passed 18-page long order dated August 18, 2026, whereby, it has constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) headed by former Supreme Court judge R. Subhash Reddy to inquire into the allegations of use of excessive force and violence by Delhi Police against the protesting students at Jantar Mantar in late July 2026.  The HPC will also comprise former Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Ravi Shankar Jha; former judge of the Delhi High Court Justice Shalinder Kaur; former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Rishi Kumar Shukla; and former Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Dr. L.R. Bishnoi as members. A Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India has provided a terms of reference to the HPC to inquire into:

-The use of excessive force and violence against protesters by police authorities and other agencies, including the deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges, and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries, some of which are alleged to be of a grievous and lasting nature;

-The question of ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings, and peaceful assemblies, so as to strike an appropriate balance between the maintenance of public order and the constitutional right to peaceful dissent;

-The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and, at times, irreversible bodily harm occasioned by their deployment against protesters;

-The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates at the time of effecting arrests or using force during crowd-control operations, so as to secure accountability and enable the identification of individual officers;

-An inquiry into the allegations pertaining to the monitoring and surveillance of protesters by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures, if undertaken, were consistent with the protesters’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly;

-The alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and/or any secondary victimisation directed against female protesters, which, given the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations, warrant a focused and expeditious inquiry;

-The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, including the manner and adequacy of such support extended thus far;

-Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (Section 144, IPC), so as to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly rather than as a genuine, proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order; and

The HPC has also been asked to examine counter-allegations from the families of police personnel and the State which include:-The alleged use of force and violence by protesters against police officials and other security personnel, which, according to the Respondents, has been understated in the narrative advanced by the Petitioners and warrants an equally rigorous and unbiased examination; The damage occasioned to public property on account of the actions of the protesters during the course of the said demonstrations, including the destruction of and injury caused to government installations, vehicles, and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike; and the injuries sustained by the police forces in the course of discharging their duties, as well as the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their kith and kin, which merits due recognition and consideration on a par with the grievances raised by the Petitioners. The Bench has directed the parties to approach the HPC and submit such relevant material, documentary evidence, and suggestions as they may deem fit, in such manner as may be decided by the HPC through its Chairperson.  

Invoking provisions under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (for words or acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, deshdroh), as an instrument to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest operates as a chilling restraint upon natural right to speech and assembly recognized by the constitution. It is akin to Section 124 A, IPC for sedition or rajdroh, which has been removed in an apparent exercise of decolonisation. Although Supreme Court has asked the governments to provide it the list of FIRs filed across the country against the students and youth who have been charged under Sections 126, 132, 189, 190, 191, 194, 223 (dealing with wrongful restraint and assault on public servant, unlawful assembly, common object, rioting and disobedience to order by public servant respectively) and other provisions. So far the government has not provided the list of FIRs to the Court. The 3-judge bench of the Court has granted liberty for complaints, representations, and material to be provided anonymously so that the identity of the complainants and witnesses is protected. 

Can democratic culture restrain use of illegitimate force? 

In just and democratic policing, the nature of and limits to police action is set by democratic legal systems which are in line with social legitimacy and legal expectations. In authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, a convergence emerges between legal orientations and collective sensibilities, normalizing use or threat of use of force to resolve critical situations in citizen-state relationship. In these regimes, state does not impose constraint on police use of force because individual liberties and the cause of justice appear inconsequential to them.  Studies have drawn three general conclusions:  (1) the legitimacy of police use of force derives from the state’s political and institutional system;(2) constraints on police use of force is linked to whether or not safeguarding citizens from abuse of power is a priority for the state; and(3) the use of force in specific police action depends on overall perceptions of the acceptability of police violence by the state and the society.  

Dr. Krishna’s note prepared for his submission at the public hearing, reads: "Is there any difficulty in our society in talking fully and openly about the deep dilemmas inherent in policing a democratic, violent, and fear-ridden society? Isn’t brutality a form of deviance? Aren’t there “bad cops”, who ought to be distinguished from “good cops”? Is it impossible to set aside rotten apples to reduce violence by police force? Unless this is done, can fellow citizens including students and youth ever trust the police? Will the State be able to decode the interconnectedness between the meaning a violent act has for the police as an actor, and the meaning it has for the fellow citizens? Whatever decision is made will ultimately act of violence have to be declared legitimate or illegitimate after factoring in judgment deficits, if any. “Will the state provide remedy for the physical and mental ailments of the police personnel? Is it natural for laws, policies, and institutional practices to continue to discriminate between how it treats the richest 1% of the population and the rest of the 99% of the population? Can the toxic culture of state violence of be eliminated and a culture of peace be created?”