Supreme Court grants liberty to Jan Suraaj Party to approach High Court for seeking fresh free and fair elections for Bihar Assembly

In Jan Suraaj Party v. The Election Commission of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 107/2026, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed an order dated February 6, 2026, granting liberty to it to approach the jurisdictional High Court. The writ petition was dismissed, as withdrawn, with the aforesaid liberty. Jan Suraaj Party had moved the Court seeking fresh free and fair elections for Bihar Assembly. The petition had sought declaration of the result of Assembly Election 2025, as null and void.It had challenged the state-wide scheme for women known as Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, wherein the Government of Bihar decided to provide financial help, through Direct Benefit Transfer, to one woman in every family by paying Rs.10,000/- to start self- employment. It had prayed for the direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare deployment of 1.80 lakh women beneficiaries hailing from the self-help group JEEVIKA on the polling booth in both phases of polling as illegal and unfair.  

A writ petition is filed by the Party under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the issuance of writ of issue writ of Mandamus, declaring the fresh addition of beneficiaries in the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana, and payment to them in course of election as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to Articles 14, 21, 112, 202 and 324 of the Constitution of India. It had sought directions to the Election Commission of India to take appropriate action under Article 324 of Constitution of India and Section 123 of Representation of Peoples Act on Direct Benefit Transfer of Rs. 10,000 to 25-35 lakhs women voters during subsistence of M.C.C and in course of elections and thereafter as gratification/bribery/corrupt practices to benefit party in power in the State. 

In August 2025, the Government of Bihar, on the eve of the general assembly elections 2025, launched Mukhayamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojana. The main objective was to provide financial support to one woman per family in Bihar to start a self-employment activity. The scheme stated that Rs 10,000 as the first instalment will be provided to all eligible women applicants who are members of Jeevika Self Help Groups, and further, additional assistance of Rs 2 lakh each will be provided by the government post assessment, however, after 6 months. The scheme benefits were to be given to women who were already registered with JEEVIKA; however, fresh applications for joining the self-help group were also invited. 

The petition reads: "The petitioner most respectfully submits that the then Government of Bihar resorted to corrupt practices to induce and allure the electors to vote in its favour by extending the benefit of Rs. 10,000/- each to be followed by Rs.2,00,000/- to new beneficiaries added post announcement of MCC and in course of elections; and the ECI failed miserably to put a check on such corrupt practices being adopted by the ruling party in the course of election schedule because of which it is humbly submitted that the election was vitiated as the other contestants/parties to the elections were deprived of level playing field which is a sheer violation of MCC, the Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951 and Articles 14 21 and 324 of the Constitution of India." 

It alleged: "It is most respectfully submitted that in course of elections and subsistence of M.C.C, new beneficiaries were added in the JEEVIKA and payments of Rs 10,000 were made to them. That the fresh addition to the DBT Scheme of estimated 25-35 lacs women voters during elections and same violates the principle of free and fair elections and principle of level playing field. The action of the State Government is an act actuated with malice to damage electoral prospects of the other parties and contenders and that the ECI failed miserably to put a check upon such corrupt practices being resorted to by the ruling government and has not followed guidelines issued by this Hon’ble Court and also its own guidelines dated 07.01.07 in compendium of Instructions Vol-III."

It also submitted that about 1.80 lac women members (beneficiaries) of the self-help group i.e JEEVIKA were deputed on polling booths as Volunteers in both phases of polling which has no basis, as JEEVIKA members (beneficiaries) are a non-government group and that most of them were beneficiaries of the DBT scheme, thus, their deputation on the polling booth can’t be called natural, fair and reasonable but were deputed for obvious reasons. 

The petition reads: "This action alone may shock the conscience of any common man to assume that such volunteers who had recently received the benefits under a Scheme, would be obviously biased in favour of the ruling Party, thereby influencing the election process and making it unfair".  It submitted "That the ECI failed to check that the instalment of DBT scheme were rolled out even on the date of proclamation of the M.C.C and announcement of election schedule in Bihar and even thereafter, during the course of election. DBT transfers were made even on days prior to polling, further, the ECI also failed to check that under the scheme in issue new beneficiaries were added during election process and the newly added beneficiaries number around 25-35 lacs (estimated) were added and paid Rs 10,000 each after proclamation of M.C.C and thereafter, which purely amounts to Bribery and thus, is a corrupt practice as envisaged under Section 123 of the R.P.A." Now if Jan Suraj approaches the High Court, it will decide the fate of the result of Assembly Election 2025. 

Also read:Patna High Court dismisses PIL on bribery of voters during recent Bihar Legislative Assembly Election

Justice Ansul quashes, sets aside judgment of conviction, order of sentence by 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui, modifies order by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur

In Aneesh Manjhi vs. The State of Bihar  (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 6-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated June 30, 2021 passed1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui in a case of 2018. He took oath as a judge of the High Court on January 27, 2026, taking total number of working judges in the High Court to 38. The court has 53 sanctioned posts, which means that even after his joining, 15 posts still remain vacant. 

In his first judgement as judge, Justice Ansul observed:"....it appears that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case and all the witnesses are official witnesses and the breath analyzer machine has not been produced to substantiate the charge under Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and also there is nothing on record to suggest that whether breath analyzer machine was capable to give correct report. Again no blood test of accused seems to have been conducted which is a major flaw. The procedure for search and seizure has not been followed, therefore, it creates a serious doubt and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him." 

The trial court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and awarded sentence to a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of payment of fine the appellant will have to suffer imprisonment for three months. The High Court noted that the appellant had already suffered prior to conviction, the same shall be adjusted against three months sentence. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from his liabilities of bail bonds and sureties.

As per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Singh, ASI, Malaypur Police Station, the case of the prosecution was that he had lodged a written report stating that on August 20, 2018 at about 14.30 o'clock when he along with his patrolling party proceeded he got an information on mobile that the appellant was in inebriated condition and creating nuisance in the locality. In order to verify his intoxicating condition, he was examined by breath analyzer machine and it was found that he has consumed 0.19 Ml alcohol, thereafter, on the basis of the written report the case, i.e., Malaypur P.S. Case was registered for the offences under Section 290 of the IPC and 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on February 28, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereafter, the charges were framed on May 4, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.

 ---------------------------------------------------------0-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sentencing order by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur modified  

In Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he concluded:"13. Having carefully considered the witnesses', testimony and the medical evidence, I find no grounds to interfere with the appellant's conviction. 14. However, the matter arises out of a land dispute and no previous conviction has been proved against the appellant. He has remained in custody for six years six months and is facing prosecution for last nine years and is in his 30's. Taking a holistic view, ends of justice would be saved if he is sentenced to period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence."

The appeal was preferred by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 9, 2021 and July 31, 2021 respectively passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in a case of 2019 which arose out of a P.S. Case of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- only and for the offences under Section 504/34 IPC one year and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only. 

The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Harendra Singh (P.W.-2) was that the appellant who was the cousin of the informant Harendra Singh came to his native village on April 24, 2017. On the same day, due to a domestic dispute, the appellant, appellant's brother namely, Krishna Singh and his mother Parvati Devi were abusing the informant at around 02:00 P.M. and when the informant and his mother stopped them from abusing, the accused suddenly came out of the room with a pistol in his hand and fired a shot at the informant, which hit him on his back and he fell down. After falling down, the accused fired another shot. Upon the informant's shouting the accused left the house with the pistol in his hand and said that whoever comes in his way will be shot. The informant's father and a villager Yogendra Singh took the injured to the police station and then to Sadar Hospital Arrah for treatment where after primary treatment by the doctor, he was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna where he was treated from April 24, 2017 to April 29, 2017. During this period no statement was recorded by any police officer. Due to this, the informant gave a written application to Arrah Mufassil on May 1, 2017. Based on the written application of the informant, Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons namely Krishna Singh and Parvati Devi. 

After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge-sheet dated April 30, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant before the Trial Court. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on May 16, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, thereafter, the charges were framed on August 9, 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 and 34 of the IPC against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. On the basis of evidences/circumstances which emerged during the trial, the trial court examined the appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein, he completely denied the evidences during the trial and claimed his complete innocence. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him. 

Justice Ansul observed: "11. It appears from perusal of record that altogether five witnesses have been examined during trial. P.W.-1, Sunaina Devi, who is mother of the informant has deposed that the appellant has shot two bullets which hit on the back of the informant. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. She has further deposed that due to partition of land in the family the present occurrence has taken place. P.W.-2, Harendra Singh, the informant of this case has supported the prosecution case as narrated above. P.W.-3, Rekha Devi has been declared hostile during trial. P.W-4, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, who is the doctor and had examined the informant, has deposed that oval shaped wound injury below the neck, i.e., 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm was found on the informant. P.W-5, Sambhunath Panday, the Investigating Officer of this case has supported the case of the prosecution. 12. It also appears that there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR. The delay is sought to be explained by treatment at PMCH. It seems that neither the treatment record at PMCH nor the version provided at PMCH has been brought on record thus making the initial version unavailable. This casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution version in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393." Being aggrieved with the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant had preferred the appeal before the High Court. 
 

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh

In Pravin Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 18, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "....we are of the considered view that prima facie the complaint seems to be with a flavour of civil dispute. That apart, investigation, if any, is to be done by the authorities, which would mainly revolve around the documentary evidence. As such, appellant is entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. 7. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellant is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the jurisdictional court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason." 

With this it reversed the 5-page long order by Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of Patna High Court who had concluded: "Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the seriousness of allegation against the petitioners. It is not fit case for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Court below concerned within ten weeks from the date of this order and pray for regular bail, the learned Court below may consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners in accordance with law and on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order." 

The appellant was arraigned as an accused in FIR of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The gist of the prosecution case was that appellant was a builder and Director of a company called City Green Infrastructure and had put up construction of apartments. One of the flats which was agreed to be sold to one of its customers, with whom the project proponent had a dispute, was not delivered the possession of the flat as agreed under the agreement and the amount paid as consideration was also not refunded; as such the issue regarding the same was pending before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority of Bihar established  under section 20 (1) of  the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. In the meanwhile, the purchaser initiated the criminal prosecution, which resulted in the FIR being registered against the appellant. 

As per the prosecution case, the petitioner no.2 (Arvind Sharma) Infrastructure along with his two partners namely Pravin Kumar (petitioner no.1) and Saurabh Kumar was developing an apartment on the land measuring 34 katha 12 dhur of Ishri Lal Yadav and Mishri Lal Yadav situated in front of Malti Kunj Apartment. It was also alleged that in the said apartment, the informant purchased flat no. 201 with parking in the ‘B’ Block in the year 2016 for total consideration of Rs. 26 lakhs, on February 23, 2018, a registered agreement was executed by the builder. On May 16, 2019, the informant paid 90% of the amount through bank and further on December 10, 2020, the informant paid Rs. 1,18,000/- as GST amount. On June 24, 2022, Rs. 1,36,800/- was paid as GST amount i.e. in total Rs. 2,54,800/- has been paid as GST. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,36,800/- was wrongly demanded by the builder which was more than the actual amount of the GST. As per the agreement, the ownership was to be transferred till September 30 2020 but till date neither the registration nor the work of the apartment has been completed and due to these acts, the informant was facing financial and mental hardship and alleged that the breach of trust was committed against him by the manager and his two partners. 

The appellant had approached the Supreme  Court for anticipatory bail because Justice Singh of the High Court did not grant him relief. 

Patna High Court detects error in sentencing order by Birendra Kumar Choubey as Additional Sessions Judge, NDPS, asks trial court to rectify its defect within one week

In Nav Kumar Ojha vs. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Patna (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Praveen Kumar passed an order dated February 18, 2026. The order reads: "Let the certified copy of the impugned judgment be sent down to the learned trial court pointing out the defect. On receipt of the same, the learned trial court shall look into the same and send a duly corrected copy of the impugned judgment to this Court within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the communication....3. List this case on 12.03.2026 under appropriate heading." The order was authored by Justice Prasad. Dr. Gopal Krishna is the counsel for the appellant. Out of the four accused persons in the N.C.B Case No. 01 of 2021, Nav Kumar Ojha, a resident of Bokaro, Jharkhand is the third person who was convicted by Birendra Kumar Choubey, 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara, in N.D.P.S. Case No.- 06 of 2021. The four named accused persons were: 1. Shankar Yadav, 2. Pritam Lakda, 3. Bijendra Kumar Rai and 4. Nav Kumar Ojha. Bijendra Kumar Rai, the third accused was acquitted by the trial court.  

Nav Kumar Ojha, the appellant in question was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 20 (B)(ii)(C) and section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment of conviction dated May 9, 2023 and order of sentence dated May 17, 2023 passed by 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara. 

The Registry of the High Court has pointed out that "Year of sentence at last page of I.O is not matching with 1st page (below chart)". The year of sentence on last page of the impugned order (I.O.), the trial court's sentencing order is 2023 but the year of sentencing order on the 1st page is 2022. 

Significantly, the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII, Ara, Bhojpur did not find sufficient evidence of criminal conspiracy against the three accused persons including Nav Kumar Ojha. Therefore, he exonerated them of offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.  

Section 29 of the Act deals with "Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy" It reads:—(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which—(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India. 

It is evident from the joint reading of the trial court's judgement and Section 29 that Nav Kumar Ojha is not involved in any criminal conspiracy. It is also crystal clear that he is neither an abettor nor a party.   

Granting benefit of doubt with regard to accusations under Section 20 (B) (ii), (C) and Sections 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, he acquitted Bijendra Kumar Rai, the main accused and released him from judicial custody. 

In the concluding sentence of his 84 page long judgement dated May 9, 2023, Virendra Kumar Choubey, Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII fixed May 17, 2023 for hearing on the point of sentencing, eight days after his date of posting-May 9, 2023-as Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Madhepura.  

In the sentencing order dated May 17, 2023, Virendra Kumar Choubey, Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII sentenced Shankar Yadav, Pritam Lakra and Nav Kumar Ojha of 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs 1 lakh. In case the fine is not submitted, the convicts will have to remain in prison for another six months.      

Notably, as per High Court's website, the judge in question was posted as District and Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura on May 9, 2023, i.e. the date on which he delivered the judgment of conviction dated May 9, 2023 as 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara, in N.D.P.S. Case No.- 06 of 2021. He passed the order of sentence on May 17, 2023. 

It is apparent that there is another error which has escaped High Court's attention. Is it possible for a judge remain posted at Bhojpur and Madhepura at the same time?. Is it possible for a judge to pass an order of sentence as 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Cum, Special Judge for NDPS Cases at Bhojpur, Ara and be posted at Madhepura District and Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura on May 17, 2023?

Also read: Criminal appeal of Jharkhand residents in NDPS case related to 9 quintals of ganja is before the High Court  

Patna High Court seized with NDPS case of 2021, driver Shankar Yadav was to get Rs 15,000, Pritam Lakra worked pro bono 

 

Supreme Court reverses anticipatory bail denial order by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra

In Amarjit Yadav @ Amarjit Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale passed a 5-page long order dated February 20, 2026. The order reads: "....we do not find any good ground to deny the prayer sought for by the appellant. Hence, appeal is allowed and appellant is ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the jurisdictional Investigating Officer...." It reversed the 3-page long order dated June 27, 2025 by Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of the Patna High Court. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court apprehending his arrest in the FIR registered on May 13, 2025 under Sections 30(a), 32(c) and 41(1)(2) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022 after denial of anticipatory bail by the High Court. 

The gist of the prosecution case is that appellant was a prospective purchaser of 260.250 liters of Indian made Foreign Liquor, which was being transported in a truck from Haryana to Bihar and the driver of the truck Sunil Paswan in his statement had disclosed the name of appellant as the potential buyer.

The Court observed: "It is an admitted fact that the contraband has not been seized from the possession of appellant and it is based on the co-accused statement, the appellant has been roped in as an accused. The courts-below had rejected the prayer of the appellant on the ground of his criminal antecedents, however none of the offences alleged are under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. Be that as it may, pursuant to our interim order, appellant has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has cooperated with the investigation which is also fairly admitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent."

Before the High Court, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner had no concern with the alleged recovery of liquor. He also submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither owner nor driver of the truck in question. Name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused person as the petitioner was receiver of the seized items and the same has got no evidentiary value. He submitted that similarly situated co-accused was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated April 2, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19754 of 2025. There is no compliance of Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

In his order Justice Mishra had concluded: "6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order." 

 

Denied opportunity to appear in CBSE's Xth Exam, Sameer Raj withdraws his appeal from Patna High Court

In Sameer Raj @ Sameer Raj & Anr. vs. Union of India through the Secretary (School of Education and Literacy), Ministry of Human Resource Department & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma passed an order dated February 18, 2026. It reads: "Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the present appeal. 2. Permission, as prayed for, is granted. 3. The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn." This L.P.A was filed and registered on February 12, 2026. The counsels of the petitioner were: Dr. Gopal Krishna, Priyanka Singh,  Eashita Raj, Khalid Faizan Khurshid and Adarsh Singh.  

The present Letters Patent Appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated January 27, 2026 passed by Justice Harish Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025, whereby the writ petition was dismissed. The reliefs prayed by the petitioner despite admitting in the ultimate and final paragraph of the Impugned Judgement and Order that the student had already appeared in the Practical Examination of Class 10 of CBSE and also without considering that even after the disposal of SLP, material changes in circumstances and new judicial developments have occurred. 

The facts of the case are that the appellant no. 1 was a minor student admitted in a CBSE-affiliated school in the year 2018 and had continuously progressed on the basis of merit up to Class-X. The appellant-student had consistently secured excellent grades in scholastic and co-scholastic areas and has already appeared in Internal, Pre-Board and Practical examinations of CBSE’s Class X examination. The difficulty arose when the CBSE online system blocked the registration of the appellant on account of an age-related software restriction, though no statutory provision prescribes such absolute bar. The appellants challenged the arbitrary denial by non-human software and sought permission to appear in AISSE 2026 by filing C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025. Although the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgement, however in the ultimate and final paragraph-20 of the impugned judgment, the Court expressly recorded that “……….. the petitioner no. 1, who was admitted in Class IV at the age of 5 years and 3 months only and has also been allowed to appear in the Pre-Board Examination of 10th for the session 2024-25 ……….” 

While dismissing the writ petition, the single Judge himself acknowledged that the claim of the appellant remained open for reconsideration as it has been concluded that “ ….. the claim of the petitioner be considered a fresh ………”. The Single Judge failed to appreciate that the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed merely on the ground that an administrative authority claims exclusive jurisdiction over a subject. Even in matters relating to education, courts are duty bound to examine whether the decision-making process is fair, reasonable, non-arbitrary and in conformity with constitutional principles. The Single Judge committed a serious error of law in holding that the respondent-CBSE is the "best judge" of considering the exceptional merit and CBSE’s decision is beyond judicial scrutiny. Such an approach is contrary to settled principles of administrative law, which mandate that no public authority can be permitted to exercise unfettered and unguided discretion immune from judicial review. He failed to consider that the respondent-CBSE has not prescribed any transparent, uniform or objective mechanism for assessing exceptional merit, nor constituted any expert   committee for such purpose. In absence of such safeguards, deference to CBSE's decision  amounts to approval of arbitrariness.

He also erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of finality of earlier litigation, without appreciating that the present case involved continuing violation of fundamental rights of a minor student and fresh circumstances relating to his academic progression and maturity. Having recorded in paragraph-20 of the impugned judgment that the appellant-student has outstanding performance and has suffered due to the fault of the CBSE controlled school, the Single Judge acted inconsistently and unreasonably in denying effective relief to the appellants, thereby defeating the very object of doing complete justice. The impugned judgment reflects excessive judicial restraint and misplaced deference to administrative authority, resulting in failure to balance regulatory discipline with constitutional protection of merit, equality and right to education, and is therefore bad in law and liable to be interfered with by the High Court.

The Single Judge decided the case of the Petitioners/ Appellants in a very mechanical manner without considering consequence of the last paragraph of his own judgement.  He is right in appreciating the admitted position that the appellant no.1 (student) was duly admitted in class-IV (i.e. in primary class) when he was at the age of 5 years 3 months and having allowed him to continue his studies up to Class-X, but erred in rectifying the error of the respondents, who hold that the appellant no.1  was not eligible for admission in that class. He failed to appreciate that subsequent to the disposal of SLP (C) no. 8849/ 2025 a fresh and highly material judicial development has occurred on 19.08.2025 in the case of Aarav Singh vs. Union of India & ors. Writ Petition no. 13186/ 2025 decided by the  High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in which Court, after considering expert material including IQ/ Psychometric assessment and noting the extraordinary academic performances of the student the Court adopted a just and reasonable approach to consider an exceptional case and has held that Clause 4.1 of the National Education Policy, 2020 is directory and not mandatory, and further observed that exceptionally meritorious students cannot be debarred on the basis of age-related norms; hence, the said judgment squarely supports the case of the Appellant no. 1 and constitutes a vital change in the circumstances after the dismissal of the said SLP. He failed to consider the subsequent and material development, that the appellant no. 1 was referred to IQ assessment at AIIMS, Patna (Dept. of Psychiatry/ Clinical Psychology) (one of the best institute of India) on 13.10.2025 and thereafter the scientific assessment was duly conducted and final result was recorded on 04.11.2025, wherein it has been conclusively opined that the appellant no. 1 possesses Superior Intellectual Functioning with recorded scores of IQ=127.

The Single Judge failed to consider direct the CBSE to permit the appellant no. 1 (student) to appear in AISSE 2026 on the basis of (i) his consistent outstanding academic record his IQ assessment of the level of Superior Intellectual Functioning having IQ=127, his outstanding performances in Co-Scholastic Areas, Co-Curricular and extra- Curricular activities -and he was permitted to appear and accordingly he appeared in Practical Examinations of class-X, which is part of CBSE examination.  

In compliance with the directions contained in the impugned judgement, the appellants submitted a detailed representation before the respondent CBSE and also personally approached the office of CBSE at New Delhi and requested for an opportunity of personal hearing, including via virtual mode for effective consideration of their case. Despite repeated requests, the respondent-CBSE did not grant any opportunity of hearing nor fixed any date for consideration of the appellant’s representations, instead the appellants were orally informed that since their earlier representation had already been rejected by order dated 20.05.2024, the CBSE authorities were not inclined to take different view left with no alternative remedy, the appellants have been constrained to prefer the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The earlier order dated 20.05.2024 was passed in very mechanical manner, without proper application of mind and without exercising jurisdiction in accordance with law, particularly because the CBSE examines the academic performances only and not extra co-curricular activities and the CBSE’s order was passed arbitrarily, unreasonably and contrary to harass the appellants. TSingle Judge failed to appreciate the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs Sanjay Gulati [AIR 1983 SC 580 = 1983 SCC (3) 517], wherein it has been categorically held that when authorities themselves commit an errors by ignoring the prescribed norms, the consequences of such lapses cannot not be imposed upon deserving students. The Supreme Court also held that:-“………Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified.”   

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.01.2026, passed by Justice Harish Kumar in C.W.J.C. No. 18381 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, the appellants preferred the LPA on following grounds:(i) Because theSingle Judge erred in law in treating the previous litigation as an absolute bar, ignoring material changes occurred after disposal of SLP (C) no. 8849/ 2025 and also ignoring the continuing nature of violation of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.  (ii) Because the Single Judge failed to appreciate that principles of res-judicata are applied with flexibility in writ jurisdiction, particularly where the constitutional rights of a minor, exceptionally meritorious student are involved. (iii) Because the impugned judgement fails to examine whether CBSE has any objective, transparent and expert based mechanism and tool to assess the exceptional merit of the student. (iv) Because the impugned judgment is inconsistent and legally unsustainable in as much as failed to consider that the school is duly affiliated to the CBSE and for all workings of the school, related to the education, the CBSE is fully responsible. (v) Because the impugned judgement failed to consider that the  appellant no. 1 (student) was admitted in class IV at the age of 5 years 3 months, and continuously studied up to class X and was also allowed to appear in examinations of Pre-Board of Class X and Practical Examination of class X (which is a part of CBSE Board Examination) and as such he cannot be restrained from appearing other papers of CBSE Class X examination, in the light of Judgement/ Order passed in Tathagat Avtar Tulsi vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and another, Writ Petition (Civil) no. 4386 of 1996,. passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. 

(vi) Because the impugned judgement failed to consider that the Hon’ble Patna High Court has hold in Judgement/ Order dated 23.01.2009 in Monark Monalisa and ors. vs. The State of Bihar and others, Writ Petition no. 10357/ 2008 that “This Court finds the rule, as contained in Article 291 (presently Article: 259) of the Bihar Education Code restricting the age is not an absolute rule……..”  and also about letter dated 23.08.1989 of the Secretary, Dr. Brij Kishore Giri of the Bihar School Examination Board that “  …. The policy decision is in furtherance to Article 291 (presently Article: 259) of the Bihar Education Code because under no statute that has been brought in my notice, there any such mandatory restriction. The policy decision itself, thus, is discretionary, as noted above.” (vii) Because the impugned judgment fails to examine whether CBSE has any objective, transparent and expert-based mechanism to assess exceptional merit of the student as CBSE itself states that “there is no such established mechanism or scientific tool to assess and declare a candidate as prodigy or exceptionally meritorious in an academic matter” and in such situation the CBSE should rely upon the results of IQ assessment by AIIMS (one of the best institute of India) that the student possesses the “Superior Intellectual Functioning” beyond age i.e. the student is “exceptionally meritorious”, beyond age i.e. the student is child prodigy and has exceptional merit and  in such situation it was just and proper to direct the CBSE to allow the student to appear in AISSE examination. 

(viii) Because the Court wrongly declined to test the action of CBSE on the anvil of arbitrariness, proportionality, and reasonableness, particularly when the CBSE itself has duly accepted that “the result of the past academic performance of the petitioner perused and found that same is satisfactory”. (ix) Because denial of registration based on a non-human software-generated age restriction, without statutory backing, is per se arbitrary and unconstitutional. (x) Because the impugned order places excessive deference on administrative discretion and undermines judicial review. (xi) Because the impugned judgment is bad in fact and law and liable to be set aside.

Also read:Sameer Raj to file Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) against Justice Harish Kumar's dismissal of his writ seeking direction to appear in CBSE's 10th Board Exam 

CBSE fails to comply with Patna High Court's orders in Sameer Raj vs. Union of India 

Patna High Court dismisses PIL on bribery of voters during recent Bihar Legislative Assembly Election

In Anil Kumar vs. The Election Commission of India Through the Chief Election Commissioner & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 4-page long judgement dated February 20, 2026, wherein, it concluded:" So far as violation of Model Code of Conduct is concerned, there is nothing in the petition that the petitioner has approached the Election Commission of India. There is no specific instances have been given that while the Model Code of Conduct was in force, there has been violation and the money has been disbursed to the beneficiaries under the Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojna. Therefore, in absence of specific averments taken in the writ petition, we do not feel it proper to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed." The other four respondents were: Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, State of Bihar Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Through the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Bihar and Department implementing the scheme Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojna, Through its Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar. The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Sahoo.  

The petitioner alleged that while the Model Code of Conduct during Bihar Legislative Assembly Election, 2025 was in force, at that point of time, some money was transferred in the accounts of the beneficiaries under Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojna, which according to the petitioner should not have been done as it amounted to bribing the voters in order to influence them to vote for the ruling parties.

The writ petition was filed with the following prayer(s): “1(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the complete records relating to the conception, approval, budgetary allocation, advertisements, beneficiary selection criteria and date-wise Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) details of the scheme titled "Mukhyamantri Mahila Rojgar Yojna", particularly during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct.(ii) Direct the Respondent-State of Bihar to file a detailed affidavit disclosing; a.total amount disbursed under the scheme, b.number of beneficiaries, c. date-wise installments released, d. authority permitting continuation of DBT during election period, and e. correspondence exchanged with the Election Commission of India.
(iii) Constitute an Independent High-Level Inquiry Committee, preferably headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India or the High Court, assisted by financial, administrative and election-law experts, to inquire into: a. the legality, b. intent, c. timing, and d. electoral impact of implementation of the said scheme during the election period.
(iv) Direct that the aforesaid inquiry shall be conducted under the supervision and monitoring of the High Court, with liberty to the Committee to summon records, call officials, examine witnesses, and submit periodical status reports before the High Court.
(v) Direct the Inquiry Committee to specifically examine: (a) whether continuation of the scheme violated the Model Code of Conduct, (b) whether the scheme amounted to inducement or bribery of voters; (c) whether public funds were misused for electoral advantage; (d) whether there was selective or discriminatory non-enforcement of election norms by the Election Commission of India. (vi) Upon completion of the inquiry, direct initiation of appropriate civil, criminal and departmental proceedings against responsible officials and authorities, if any illegality, misconduct or abuse of power is found. (vii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission of India to frame and strictly enforce uniform, binding and transparent guidelines governing Direct Benefit Transfer and welfare scheme disbursement during election periods, applicable uniformly across all States and Union Territories.”