Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, Justice Harish Kumar set aside judgement by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma in case of compassionate appointment of peon's son

In The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Ravi Shankar Kumar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench f Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 33-page long judgement dated May13, 2026, wherein, it concluded:".....this Court, with utmost respect to the learned Single Judge, is of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment/order suffers from patent illegality and is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra). Accordingly, the judgment/order dated 28.02.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12607 of 2014 is hereby set aside. Consequently,the writ petition stands dismissed. The present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed." 

The judgement was authored by Justice Kumar set aside the judgement by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma. Justice Kumar relied on Supreme Court's 16-page long judgment dated November 30, 2018, in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kirti Narayan Prasad [(2019) 13 SCC 250 and 39-page long judgement dated October 17, 2019 in State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Devendra Sharma [(2020) 15 SCC 466. The former was delivered by a 3-Judge Bench of the Court and authored by Justice S. Abdul Nazeer. The latter was delivered by a Division Bench of the Court and authored by Justice Hemant Gupta. Justice Kumar had relied on these judgements in his 21-page long judgement dated June 19, 2025 in Mulmul Devi vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025) as well but to set aside the order dated August 4, 2022 passed by the Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Supaul, the respondent no.3. He had concluded: "35. This Court directs the concerned respondent(s) to ensure payment of all the admissible death-cum-retiral/outstanding dues to the petitioner...." The six respondents were: The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Director in Chief (Nursing), Health Services, Bihar, The Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Officer, Supaul, Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Basantpur, Supaul, District Treasury Officer Supaul and Accountant General, Bihar.The writ petition was allowed to the indicated extent.  

In the present LPA, Justice Kumar as part of the Division Bench grappled with following five issues and concluded:  (i) As to whether the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad (supra) and Devendra Sharma (supra) would be applicable to the case of the present writ petitioner, particularly when neither the petitioner nor his father was a party to the said proceedings? The law laid down by the Supreme Court "in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra) shall squarely apply to the case of the present writ petitioner, notwithstanding the fact that neither the writ petitioner nor his deceased father was a party to the aforesaid cases." 

(ii) Whether the services of the petitioner’s father, who died in harness on April 15, 2012, can be declared “illegal” posthumously, without affording him an opportunity to contest such findings? Once the Division Bench of the High Court found that the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case, and further that the services of the petitioner’s father had already been categorized as “illegal” during his lifetime, based upon the report of the Committee, the finding of which was duly accepted in the above noted cases, "this Court finds no difficulty in reaffirming and accepting such finding of illegal appointment in light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even, if it is after the death of the petitioner’s father, in view of the settled position of law that when death occurs after conclusion of inquiry or the matter is pending, either for final order or appellate stage, there can be no abatement of proceeding." 

(iii) Whether, the State and its authorities having extended all consequential service benefits, including salary and death-cum-retiral dues to the petitioner’s father, it is open to them at this stage to treat his appointment as illegal? Irrespective of the fact that the petitioner’s father had been granted consequential service benefits, including salary and death-cum-retiral dues during the pendency of the proceedings, "there exists no legal impediment even at this stage in treating the very appointment as illegal in terms of the law laid down in Kirti Narayan Prasad and Devendra Sharma (supra)."

(iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the State is legally justified in declining to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds?  The Division Bench judgement reads: "....the State is legally justified in declining to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground."

(v) Whether the petitioner’s claim of parity with similarly situated persons, such as Munna Kumar, can be denied without any justifiable basis?  The judgement reads: "Once this Court has already concluded and held that the appointment of the petitioner’s father was illegal in terms of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as noticed hereinabove, the petitioner’s claim of parity with Munna Kumar and others, who are stated to have been granted compassionate appointment, is wholly untenable both in law and on facts.

The intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent (LPA), was directed against the order dated February 28, 2025 passed by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, the Single Judge had delivered a 12-page long judgement dated February 28, 2025, wherein, he allowed the writ petition. He set aside the memo dated March 27, 2014 and memo dated February 23, 2023 issued by Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and directed him and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur "to take a fresh decision in accordance with law for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, considering all the aforesaid facts within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order and take the matter to a logical conclusion considering his father to be in service on the date of his death." 

Earlier, in  Ravi Shankar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma had delivered a 12-page long judgement dated February 28, 2025, wherein, he allowed the writ petition. He set aside the memo dated March 27, 2014 and memo dated February 23, 2023 issued by Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and directed him and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur "to take a fresh decision in accordance with law for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground, considering all the aforesaid facts within a period of three months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order and take the matter to a logical conclusion considering his father to be in service on the date of his death." 

The other four respondents were: Director in Chief Health Services, Bihar, Patna, Director, Health Services, Bihar, Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur and District Magistrate, Bhagalpur cum chairman District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Bhagalpur. 

The writ petition was filed for quashing the memo dated March 27, 2014 issued under the signature of Superintendent, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur, the Respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner was informed that his application for compassionate appointment will be considered after disposal of LPA and for quashing the memo dated March 23, 2023 issued under the signature of Respondent No. 4 by which the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the service of the father of the petitioner was not valid.

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis on March 28, 1987. Thereafter, vide memo dated March 29, 1990, the service of the father of the petitioner was absorbed to the post of peon in the scale of 775-1025 with effect from the date of joining and after more than 12 years from his appointment, the father of the petitioner has received a letter dated May 29, 1999 by which the father of the petitioner was informed that his appointment is prima facie irregular and father of the petitioner was restrained from work and his salary was also stopped by the authority concerned. The father of the petitioner had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 6541 of 1999 and during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition the father of the petitioner was terminated from the service with effect from May 30, 1999 after the holding that his joining was irregular. The same was challenged by the father of the petitioner in the writ petition of 1999 and the same was heard along with other similar matters on February 26, 2004 and it was held that the petitioners came to the High Court seeking their salary but during the pendency they were terminated from service and the petitioner and other similarly situated persons are given liberty to take appropriate proceeding before the appropriate forum challenging the order of termination. The father of the petitioner had again filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 5114 of 2004 for quashing the order dated September 21, 1999 whereby he was terminated from service with effect from May 30, 1999 and the same was heard along with other similar cases and by common order dated June 26, 2006 passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, it was disposed of with direction to the authority, namely, Health Department, Government of Bihar to reconsider the cases of all the affected employees in light of the Constitution Bench Judgment passed in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi reported in 2006(3) PLJR 386 then after more than two year from the order dated June 26, 2006 passed in LPA No. 946 of 2003 and analogous cases, an enquiry report was communicated to the father of the petitioner by which his appointment was held illegal by the enquiry committee.

The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that before issuing enquiry report with respect to father of the petitioner, neither the father of the petitioner was given any opportunity of hearing nor any notice to the show cause was issued to him by the enquiry committee. Enquiry committee had issued the enquiry report in clear violation of principle of natural justice, equity and fair. Then father of the petitioner had again filed CWJC No. 8225 of 2009 for quashing the enquiry report with respect to him whereby appointment was held illegal and further for directing the respondent authority to reinstate him on the post on which he was working earlier before termination from service with all the salary and other consequential benefits. The writ petition was also heard along with other similar cases and finally vide order dated October 6, 2009 the imugned enquiry report as well as termination order was quahsed and the concerned authorities were directed to reinstate the petitioners on the post on which they were working before the termination with all the consequential benefits. The order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 6575 of 2009 and analogous cases was affirmed upto the Supreme Court. The father of the petitioner had filed a contempt petition bearing MJC No. 4848 of 2010 for initiating contempt of court proceeding against concerned authority for violation of order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 8225 of 2009. During the pendency of the contempt petition, an order was issued vide memo dated January 30, 2012 under the signature of the Respondent No. 4 by which father of the petitioner has been reinstated on the post on which he was working. Soon thereafter, the father of the petitioner died in harness on April 15, 2012 due to illness while working as Darban in the Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College Hospital, Bhagalpur. The entire dues salary due to the father of the petitioner from the date of termination until his reinstatement in terms of the order dated October 6, 2009 passed in CWJC No. 8225 of 2009 was paid to the petitioner vide order dated December 14, 2022.

The counsel for the petitioner had submitted the High Court that the father of the petitioner was reinstated pursuant to the direction of the High Court on 30.01.2012 and while he was working, he died in harness on April 15, 2012 due to illness which suggests that father of the petitioner was in service on the date of his death. So the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground and apart from that the similarly situated person, namely, Munna Kumar whose case was considered by the authority concerned and Munna Kumar was appointed on the basis of compassionate ground by the authority concerned and in the present case the authority has intentionally not considered the case of the petitioner and the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by referring some orders passed in Civil Appeal No. 8649 of 2018 as well as Civil Appeal No. 7879 of 2019 by the Supreme Court in which neither the petitioner nor his late father was a party and apart from that from perusal of the order dated 11.01.2024 passed in MJC No. 47972 of 2018, the High Court had held that the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court are in personam and not in rem. 

Justice Verma had observed that on the date of death, the father of the petitioner was in service and apart from that the state authority had paid all the retirement cum death benefits to the petitioner. On "one hand the state has admitted that his father was in service and on other hand, the state has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his father was not in service." The judgement recorded that apart from that the letter no. 1323 dated February 23, 2023 by which the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, refers some orders of the Supreme Court in which neither the petitioner nor his late father was a party and apart from that the order passed in MJC No. 47972 of 2018, it is crystal clear that the High Court has held that the aforesaid orders passed by the Supreme Court are in personam and not in rem. 

Now the Division Bench has reversed the judgement by Justice Verma. A comparison between judgement dated June 19, 2025 by Justice Kumar as Single Judge and the judgement dated February 28, 2025 by Justice Verma as Single Judge is likely to offer fruitful insight.    

Journalism of “innocent fraud”: The great decline of legal journalism in Bihar-Part 1

"I have learned that to be right and useful, one must accept a continuing divergence between approved belief - what I have elsewhere called conventional wisdom - and the reality. And in the end, not surprisingly, it is the reality that counts.......... It is my conclusion that reality is more obscured by social or habitual preference and personal or group pecuniary advantage in economics and politics than in any other subject.

How can fraud be innocent? How can innocence be fraudulent? The answer is of no slight significance, for innocent, lawful fraud has an undoubted role in private life and public discourse. However, by neither those so believing nor those so guiding is there spoken recognition of that fact. There is, to emphasize, no sense of guilt or responsibility. Some of this fraud derives from traditional economics and its teaching and some from the ritual views of economic life. These can strongly support individual and group interest, particularly, as might be expected, that of the more fortunate, articulate and politically prominent in the larger community, and can achieve the respectability and authority of everyday knowledge. This is not the contrivance of any individual or group but represents the natural, even righteous view of what best serves personal or larger interest.

Most progenitors of what I hear intend to identify as innocent fraud are not deliberately in its service. They are unaware of how their views are shaped."

-Excerpts from Prof. John Kenneth Galbraith’ The Economics of Innocent Fraud: Truth For Our Time (2004) 

“An advocate shall not be a full-time salaried employee of any person, government, firm, corporation or concern, so long as he continues to practise, and shall, on taking up any such employment, intimate the fact to the Bar Council on whose roll his name appears and shall thereupon cease to practise as an advocate so long as he continues in such employment. Nothing in this rule shall apply to a Law Officer of the Central Government of a State or of any Public Corporation or body constituted by statute who is entitled to be enrolled under the rules of his State Bar Council made under Section 28 (2) (d) read with Section 24 (1) (e) of the Act despite his being a full time salaried employee. Law Officer for the purpose of these Rules means a person who is so designated by the terms of his appointment and who, by the said terms, is required to act and/or plead in Courts on behalf of his employer.”

-Rule 49, Bar Council of India Rules under Advocates Act, 1961 on Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette

Conflict-of-interest ridden landscape of of legal journalism in the State is stinking because it has become rotten in its core with no possibility of sunlight disinfecting their incestuous relationship with the bar, executive, legislative and judicial institutions. Several factors have contributed to the erosion of journalistic ethics, including conflict-of-interest ridden assignments, sycophancy, financial pressures, naked affiliation with political parties and complicity with Jeffrey Edward Epstein like characters. Such journalists have entered into a Faustian bargain and appear to be decadent child of the Mephistopheles. Most of these journalists have not studied journalism and act in colossal ignorance of the ethics of journalism and the 5W and 1H framework of the elements of news data, comprising of Who? (character) What? (plot) When? (time) Where? (location) Why? (motivation or causation), How? (narrative). Journalists who practice journalism of “innocent fraud” cannot become worthy of emulation by young journalists. In order to hide the identity of the journalists, who also happen to be advocates, most of the news reports about courts are authored by anonymous, and non-transparent journalists. If their veils are pierced, the conflict-of-interest ridden clandestine operation and questionable journalistic practices will come to light. They seem to be mortally afraid of sunlight.          

The Supreme Court in Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa 1996 AIR 1708, in para 20 observed: "legal profession requires full time attention and would not countenance an Advocate riding two horses or more at a time." In complete disregard of the settled law, a large number of legal reporters in the State of Bihar are riding two horses by practicing as an advocates as well as journalists to win illegitimate favours from bar, executive, legislative and judicial institutions.  

In Mohd. Kamran vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2024), Supreme Court’s Division Bench asked the State Bar Council as well as the Bar Council of India ascertain whether the rules of professional ethics permit a practicing Advocate to simultaneously work as a journalist. It issued noticde to notice to the Bar Council of India as well as Bar Council of State of Uttar Pradesh. In its order dated December  16, 2024, the Court passed an order which reads: We have perused the response of the Bar Council of India. The Bar Council, for the reasons stated, has taken a stand that it is not permissible for an Advocate to do full time journalism. Now, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 13th December, 2024 giving an undertaking in terms of paragraph 11 stating that the petitioner will not engage himself in the field of journalism either full time or part time and he will continue to practice as an Advocate. Today, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in presence of the petitioner has accepted the correctness of the stand taken by the Bar Council of India.” The counsel appearing behalf of the Bar Council of India (BCI) made it clear that such dual roles are not allowed. Referring to the conflicting roles of advocates and journalists, the BCI submitted: “Lordship, they cannot practice law while also being accredited journalists”.  

The case had arisen out of the judgment dated March 12, 2024 passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had arisen from summoning order dated  order dated January 10, 2024 by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III (MP/ MLA), Lucknow in Dr. Mohd. Kamran vs. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh (2024). The High Court had recorded in its order that the complainant was enrolled on the rolls of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and regularly appeared as an Advocate before the High Court as well as before the District and Sessions Court, Central Administrative Tribunal and was also a member of Oudh Bar Association, Lucknow. It was claimed that and in the light of Rule 51 of Bar Council of India, he was also having the status of a freelance journalist and was engaged in the profession for about 25 years. The High Court had set aside the summing order. Supreme Court did not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. But recorded the submission of the BCI which referred to Rule 49 of the BCI Rules, prohibiting advocates from taking full-time jobs with individuals, businesses, government agencies, or other entities. If an advocate becomes employed, they must inform the Bar Council and stop practicing law during their employment. The Supreme Court had asked "How can a member of the Bar claim to be both a journalist and an Advocate? This is highly unprofessional."

Disregarding the directions of the Court and the Rule 49 of the BCI, the advocates across the State of Bihar are practicing as legal reporters as well.

Decline in coverage of courts, paid news, threat to open justice

A significant sections of the legal journalists in Bihar have willy-nilly become participants and players in questionable practices that contribute to the growing use of money power which undermines democratic processes and norms–while hypocritically feigning to occupy a high moral ground.

The 47th report on the “Issues Related to Paid News” by India’s Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology reviewed the genesis of “Paid News‟, existing mechanism/guidelines/codes/norms/organisations/legislations in this regard and measures required to tackle the malpractice. It recorded that a large number of journalists maintain deafening silence on this malpractice. Press Council of India (PCI) informed the Committee that over last six decades ‘Paid News’ have changed its form ranging from accepting gifts on various occasions, going on a sponsored tours, to other benefits and direct payment of money. The parliamentary report found that the decline in independence of the journalists/reporters was due to the emergence of contract system of employment as the system has the affect of reducing their status to mere marketing agents. The Committee felt perturbed at the pathetic working conditions of the significant part of the media personnel while strongly disapproving the tendency of the media houses to hire and fire the journalists. Among the legal journalists, it is increasingly apparent that they are dependent on undue favours from the bar, executive, legislative and judicial institutions to continue in their dual role as journalist and advocate although riding two horses is impermissible in law.  

It germane to take note of the report of the Justice Select Committee of UK’s parliament which has highlighted the impact of reduced court reporting on the public’s understanding of how justice works, from understanding sentencing guidelines to the long-established and respected principle of open justice–‘justice must be done, and seen to be done.’ The committee has made a case for the ‘re-establishment of a courts’ inspectorate’ to help identify ‘wider issues’ within the justice system, ignored by journalists. The decline in coverage of courts has undermined democratic process. It has adverse impact on ‘open justice’.

In Bihar, the legal journalists report only about few cases heard by few out of the 37 judges in Patna High Court. Their selection of news about ongoing court cases and final judgments and orders is arbitrary. In general, in most of the cases, these journalists either do not seem to have any news sense  about why a particular case is news worthy or the newspaper editors do not provide them adequate space because justice related stories are not a priority or news worthy for them. The judgments and orders by most of the judges are not reported or not deemed news worthy for some inexplicable reason. They report only about the advocates and judges who are personally known to them. In general, they do not report when judgments and orders by single judges are either reversed or upheld by a 2-judge bench or by 3-judge full bench or when the High Court judgments are set aside or upheld by the Supreme Court. The UK’s Justice Committee has observed: “the less aware the public is of the rule of law and the less informed they are as to whether the administration of justice is functioning as it should.” This observation is relevant for court reporting in Bihar as well. Digital media has attempted to fill the gap in court reporting left by the decline by newspapers without success. The loss of public understanding of how justice is applied creates a rupture in citizens sense of reality.

A content analysis of judgments delivered by the High Court and its orders can provide a ‘snapshots’ of the deteriorating state of court reporting in Bihar. Take the case of the number of news reports about 254 judgments and 4012 orders by the 2-judge bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice of the High Court during his tenure during January 7, 2026-May 13, 2026. The news papers did not report about almost all of them. The content analysis will also reveal that the legal journalists do not report about Reportable Judgments by the High Court in diverse areas of law. They do not inform their readers about the rate of judgments delivered by each judge, the rate of judgments upheld by 2-judge bench and the Supreme Court and the rate of judgments and orders by the High Court which get appealed in the Supreme Court. They do not report about the number judgments and orders deemed news worthy in a year.The rigorous reporting of some of the judgments by digital legal journalists exposes the lackadaisical approach of legal journalists who do reporting for newspapers.

A careful scrutiny will reveal out of 254 judgments by the bench headed by outgoing Chief Justice of the High Court, only minuscule number cases were actually attended by journalists and very few were reported. A number of newspapers have not covered several benches of the High Court for several years. It is also a fact that the exorbitant costs of court transcripts is a barrier for undertaking rigorous reporting of the court proceedings. There is a compelling need to ensure that court transcripts and the full text of the petitions are more accessible to the journalists and the public because sunlight is the best disinfectant.

As per information available on the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), as on March 25, 2026, the number of cases pending for more than 3 years in the lower courts of Bihar are 24,93,657, which are approximately 67% of the total pending cases in Bihar i.e. 37,11,288. Out of every 100 new cases, only 55 are being cleared.

As of May 15, 2026, there are 36 lakh pending cases in the courts in all the districts of Bihar. For example, in Patna and  Bhojpur,  4,60,750 cases and 1,07,645 cases are waiting.

The pendency of cases in courts arose due to several factors besides availability of adequate number of judges and judicial officers. These factors include complexity of the facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stakeholders, viz., bar, investigation agencies, witness and litigants, besides the availability of physical infrastructure, supporting court staff, etc.The legal journalists reporting for newspapers in Bihar have failed to report about these factors.

As per the information available on the Nyaya Vikas Portal 2.0, as on March 25, 2026, there were 364 vacant posts of judges in the subordinate courts of Bihar out of the total sanctioned strength of 2025 which is about 17.9% while at the national level 4,887 posts are vacant out of the total sanctioned strength of 25,902 posts which is 18.86%. In its 120th report (1987), the Law Commission of India recommended that the State should increase the present ratio from 10.5 Judges per million of Indian population to at least 50 Judges per million of Indian population. In Imtiyaz Ahmed vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.(2012), the Supreme Court had asked the Law Commission of India to evolve a method for scientific assessment of the number of additional courts required to clear the backlog of cases. In 245th Report (2014), the Law Commission observed that filing of cases per capita varies substantially across geographical units as filings are associated with economic and social conditions of the population. As such the Law Commission did not consider the judge population ratio to be a scientific criterion for determining the adequacy of the judge strength in the country. The Law Commission found the “Rate of Disposal” method i.e. to calculate the number of additional judges required to clear the backlog of cases as well as to ensure that new backlog is not created to be more pragmatic and useful.

In August 2014, the Supreme Court asked the National Court Management System Committee (NCMS Committee) to examine the recommendations made by the Law Commission and to furnish its recommendations in this regard. NCMS Committee submitted its report to the Supreme Court in March, 2016. The report observed that in the long term, the judge strength of the subordinate courts will have to be assessed by a scientific method to determine the total number of “Judicial Hours” required for disposing of the case load of each court. In the interim, the Committee has proposed a “weighted” disposal approach i.e. disposal weighted by the nature and complexity of cases in local conditions.

As per the direction of the Supreme Court in its order dated January 2, 2017, the Department of Justice had forwarded a copy of interim report of the NCMS Committee to all the State Governments and High Courts to enable them to take follow up action to determine the required strength of district and subordinate judiciary. The judge-to-population ratio in the District and subordinate courts of Bihar is 19.45.

The Supreme Court by its order passed in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. (2007) provided timelines, which was required to be followed by the States and the respective High Courts for recruitment of judges in District and Subordinate Courts but the same has not been adhered to in Bihar. Most legal journalists have remained silent about it.  

Colossal failure: Non-reporting about deficiency in judicial infrastructure   

The construction work of buildings for advocates in all 38 districts and 101 sub-divisions remains incomplete. They are crying for adequate budgetary allocation in each budget for repair of old buildings, construction of new buildings, provision of library, electronic equipment, separate toilets for male and female advocates, witnesses in all district civil courts and sub-divisional courts.

In Ramakant Sharma vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), High Court's Infrastructure Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Mohit Kumar Shah passed an order dated May 14, 2026, wherein it recorded that Thiyagarajan S.M., the District Magistrate, Patna informed the Court that for construction of lawyers’ hall, digital computer room and toilet complex, a piece and parcel of land has been identified within the civil court premises at Barh. After joint inspection of the same by the officers of the Government and the Principal District Judge, Patna, the land has been found suitable. He has informed that no objection letter is to be received from the Principal District Judge, Patna, whereafter further progress shall be made. It has been further informed that for Patna City (Patna) also, a suitable piece of land has been identified and today itself, there will be a meeting with the Principal District Judge, Patna with whom after discussion, further steps shall be taken towards the construction of lawyers’ hall and other related amenities." The Court's order reads:"We expect that the District Magistrate, Patna shall take keen interest in the matter and with his efforts, the construction work of lawyers’ hall at Barh as well as Patna City should start at the earliest. All concerned stake holders, including the Secretary, Department of Building Construction, and the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Bihar must co-operate in the matter." The order also noted that out of ten districts it was examining, in nine districts the land for construction of lawyers’ hall and related amenities are still not available. Regarding Gaya Ji, it was stated that a government land has been identified and a lay out plan has been demanded from the Chief Architect, Building Construction Department.

On May 15, 2026, the Court recorded that regarding construction of lawyers’ hall and other amenities at Kahalgaon, Dr. Nawal Kishor Choudhary, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur has assured the Court he will find out suitable piece of land in consultation with the Principal District Judge, Bhagalpur and other stakeholders. The Court directed the District Magistrate and the Principal District Judge, Bhagalpur to sit together with all the stakeholders, identify the land and send an appropriate proposal to the Law Department within one month from May 15 and let a report in this regard be submitted to this Court by June 22, 2026.

Sahila, the District Magistrate, Buxar informed the court that she has found a suitable place for construction of lawyers’ hall and other amenities as required, in consultation with the Principal District Judge, Buxar. The proposal is yet to be sent to the Law Department. The Court's order reads: "We expect that the District Magistrate and the Principal District Judge, Buxar both shall sit together within a period of one week from May 15, 2026 and take an appropriate decision with regard to the suitability of the land for construction of lawyers’ hall and other amenities. A proposal in this regard be sent to the Law Department within one month from today. A report be submitted to this Court by 22nd June, 2026.”

Navin Kumar, the District Magistrate, Khagaria informed the court that the lawyers’ hall is to be constructed in place of the existing old lawyers’ hall after demolition. Earlier, a proposal was sent but the Chief Architect, Building Construction Department was of the opinion that the land was not suitable but according to the District Magistrate, Khagaria, this land is very much suitable and he would send a fresh measurement of the land to the Executive Engineer, Khagaria Division. The High Court had also called upon the District Magistrate, Khagaria to discuss the matter with the local Bar Associations in presence of the Principal District Judge, Khagaria so that the old lawyers’ hall may be demolished without any hindrance and construction of a new lawyers’ hall with all amenities may proceed.

Ravi Parkash, the District Magistrate, Nawada informed that earlier correspondences were made with BSRTC and the Transport Department to make available some portion of the land belonging to BSRTC which is adjacent to the Civil Court Premises of Nawada but that could not bear fruit. The Court had requested the District Magistrate, Nawada to discuss the matter with the MD, BSRTC in this regard. If the land is lying idle and for last 3 years, no work has been done over that land by the BSRTC, the BSRTC may be requested to part with certain portion of the land in order to provide some expansion to the Civil Court Premises. The Court directed that let a comprehensive report in this regard be submitted to this Court after holding a discussion with MD,  BSRTC within one month from May 15, 2026. In the meantime, the suitability of the land for the Civil Court Campus at Patna-Ranchi Road NH-20 be also considered and a decision may be taken in this regard by the stakeholders. A suitable decision be taken at the District Level Infrastructure Committee of the District Court, Nawada.

In Based on the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. 28530 of 2019 Bihar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026). the High Court's Infrastructure Bench comprising Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Mohit Kumar Shah passed a detailed order dated May 15, 2026 directing DMs and the concerned Secretaries of the State government to ensure construction of courts in the districts at the earliest after recording their submissions.

Tanai Sultania, District Magistrate, Bhojpur informed the Court that "presently no government land is available in the vicinity of the Civil Court, Ara for construction of Excise Court. The District Magistrate has assured this Court that a suitable piece of land measuring 10 acres has been identified for construction of a new civil court campus. A suitability report with regard to the said land has been provided. He has submitted that construction of civil court campus will take some substantial time. For the present, he proposes to construct Excise Court nearby the civil court campus, if required by acquiring private raiyati land or by taking a suitable building premises on hire basis." The order recorded that the District Magistrate, Bhojpur has assured the Court that he will advertise for expression of interest shortly within a week." Although more than one week has passed, the legal journalists of the newspapers are yet to report as to whether the promised expression of interest has been advertised.

Vinod Duhan, the District Magistrate, Araria informed the Court that for construction of Excise Court in Araria, "38 decimals of government land has been identified. A letter has been written to the Water Resources Department to give ‘no objection’ so that steps for transfer of the land in favour of the Court be taken. He has submitted that reminder has also been sent to the Water Resources Department in this regard." The Court directed the Secretary, Water Resources Department "to immediately take appropriate decision to issue ‘no objection’ for the purpose of transfer of the land so that the construction of Excise Court may start in Araria. It is recorded only for understanding of the stake holders that it is an obligation of the State to provide Exclusive Excise Court as per the mandate under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. Let such decision be taken within two weeks. On receipt of ‘no objection certificate’, further steps shall be taken to construct the court building."

So far the legal journalists not reported as to why Secretary, Water Resources Department has not issued ‘no objection’ for the purpose of transfer of the land so that the construction of Excise Court may start in Araria. Is it not dereliction of duty?

Abhilasha Sharma, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad informed the Court that "40 decimals of suitable land has been found for construction of Excise Court building within the premises of the Civil Court, Aurangabad. She has further informed this Court that by tomorrow, new proposal will be sent to the Law Department for further steps." The Court's order reads: "Let the proposal be sent to the Law Department to do the needful whereafter the Law Department shall process the file with all other stake holders and proceed towards construction of Excise Court building. Let a report in this regard be submitted to this Court by the Law Department before the next date of listing" on 25th of June, 2026.

Shrikant Shastree, the District Magistrate, Begusarai informed the Court that "search for suitable land for construction of premises is on and a committee has been constituted for this purpose and very soon a suitable piece of land for the civil court is likely to be identified. As regards, Excise Court building, he has informed that for the present, he is not able to trace the suitable piece of land as it is a township and there is dense population." The court recorded: "Perhaps suitable place is not available but the District Magistrate has assured that he will go for hiring a suitable building nearby the civil court premises for running the Excise Court. He prays for a month’s time to go for advertisement etc. for hiring suitable building." The Court allowed one month to do that and directed that a report in this regard be submitted to this Court showing compliance after a month.

Taranjot Singh, the District Magistrate, Bettiah informed that "a suitable piece of land for construction of Excise Court building has been identified but the said land belongs to Bettiah Estate. To proceed further with the said land, he has to make certain compliances with the Rules for that purpose. He is preparing the proposal and the same will be sent to the Law Department." The Court recorded that "The Secretary, Law Department, Government of Bihar is present online. He has assured the Court to go through the entire matter and take suitable steps towards making the things clear for construction of Excise building at Bettiah." The Court directed that "a comprehensive report be filed before this Court within a month by the Law Secretary."

Dr. Nawal Kishor Choudhary, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur informed the Court that "the work of Excise Court building is likely to be finished within a month. He has assured that when the building would be made functional, all encroachments in and around the campus shall be removed." The  Court sought an updated report in this regard within six weeks from May 15, 2026.

Sahila, the District Magistrate, Buxar informed that construction work of the Excise Court is complete but to make it functional certain requirements like generator set, furniture and other amenities are required to be installed. She informed that sanction has been sought for in this regard from the Building Construction Department and the same is pending at the level of Chief Engineer of the Department. The Court's order recorded that Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department was present in the Court who has assured that "he would place the matter to the notice of the Chief Engineer and will get it done within a period of 15 days from today whereafter the same will be sent to the Law Department for sanction. He has assured that he will get the demand approved and the same will be sent to the Law Department for sanction." The Court directed the Chief Engineer of the Department to send the approval immediately to the Law Department and the Law Department, in turn, will do the needful granting sanction at the earliest opportunity. We expect that Excise Court be made functional within a month from May 15, 2026.

Vaibhava Srivastava, the District Magistrate, Chapra informed that "a suitable piece of land for construction of the Excise Court has already been identified. The estimate is under preparation at the level of Building Construction Department." The Court's order recorded  that the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department submitted that within a week, estimates shall be prepared and the same shall be sent to the Law Department for administrative approval." The Court directed the Building Construction Department to prepare the estimate/proposal and send to the Law Department for administrative approval. The Law Department shall do the needful expeditiously and inform this Court within one month from May 15, 2026.

Pawan Kumar Sinha, the District Magistrate, Gopalganj informed that "a suitable piece of land has been identified for construction of Excise Court building and within 15 days from today, he will get all the formalities done at various levels and a proposal in this regard shall be sent to the Law Department." The Court directed that it should be done at the earliest. The Law Department shall take up this matter immediately after receipt of the proposal. Progress made in this regard be informed to this Court within a month.

Sanjay Kumar, A.D.M, Vaishali at Hajipur informed that "a suitable piece of land admeasuring 15 acres for construction of civil court campus at Hajipur has been identified. A proposal for acquisition of land is being prepared and the same will be sent to the Law Department within a period of 15 days" from May 15, 2026. The Court also informed that "for construction of Excise Court building also a suitable piece of land has been identified and a proposal in this regard is being sent to the Law Department within 15 days." The Court took the statement on record and directed that "On receipt of the proposal, the Law Department shall act suitably and will do the needful at the earliest opportunity. Compliance report be sent to this Court within three weeks."

Regarding Excise Court building at Jamui, the Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department informed the Court that even as the work order was issued on July 24, 2024, there was some delay in start of the work due to encroachment. Now, the work has started and it is likely to be finished by end of this year. The Court directed the Department to continue with the ongoing construction work and try to complete it as early as possible. Let a report in this regard be submitted to this Court with the progress made in the construction work after two months.

Alankrita Pandey, the District Magistrate, Jehanabad was directed to inform the Court as to when the Excise Court building is going to be handed over to the Court. If there is any requirement to make it functional, the same be brought to the notice of the Building Construction Department at the earliest and on receipt of such requirement the Building Construction Department will do the needful to facilitate the early opening of the Excise Court building. Compliance report be sent to this Court within a month.

Vishal Raj, the District Magistrate, Kishanganj informed that "a suitable piece of land for construction of Excise Court has already been identified. He has stated that a proposal has been sent to the Law Department in August, 2024." The Court directed that the Law Secretary, Government of Bihar should take note of it.

Anand Sharma, the District Magistrate, Madhubani has informed that "a suitable piece of land has been identified and a proposal in this regard has been sent to the Law Department today itself vide Memo No.1281 dated 15.05.2026. As soon as the Law Department grants its approval to the said piece of land, the matter shall be referred to the Building Construction Department for further action." The Court's order reads: "We call for an updated report from the Law Department and the Building Construction Department in this regard before the next date of listing" on June 25, 026.

Subrat Kumar Sen, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur informed that "at Muzaffarpur, no suitable piece of land has been made available for construction of Excise Court Building." The Court's order reads: "The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur is directed to look into the matter and take expeditious steps in consultation with the Principal District Judge, Muzaffarpur to find out a suitable piece of land and inform this Court on the next date of listing. Information in this regard be sent to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur by the learned Standing Counsel-11 for the State."

Kundan Kumar, the District Magistrate, Nalanda informed that "18 acres of land has been identified for civil court campus in Biharsharif. The Excise Court will also come within the civil court campus." The District Magistrate, Nalanda agreed for the present that he will go for finding out a suitable building/accommodation from where Excise Court may be run. The Court's order reads: "We grant him a month’s time to come out with advertisement for a suitable building on hire basis for running the Excise Court. Let a report in this regard be submitted by 22nd of June, 2026."

Ravi Parkash, the District Magistrate, Nawada informed that "a suitable piece of land has been identified and a proposal has already been sent to the Law Department in December, 2025. The Secretary, Law Department has informed this Court that the matter is presently pending at the end of the Principal District Judge, Nawada with regard to the suitability of the land." The Court directed the Principal District Judge, Nawada to take appropriate view of the matter and inform the Law Secretary preferably within a period of two weeks from may 15, 2026.

Udita Singh, the District Magistrate, Sasaram informed that "a suitable piece of land has been identified. The land belongs to the Water Resources Department, therefore she is making communication with that department for obtaining ‘no objection’." The Court's order reads: "We expect that communication shall be made immediately without losing further time and the Water Resources Department shall issue ‘no objection’ for construction of the Excise Court at the earliest. A comprehensive report in this regard be submitted to this Court by 22nd June, 2026."

Pratibha Rani, the District Magistrate, Sheohar informed that "a suitable piece of land for construction of Excise Court building has been identified and proposal with regard to the same has been sent to the Law Department through the Principal District Judge, Sheohar." The Court directed the Secretary, Law Department to look into the matter and do the needful towards further progress of the construction of Excise Court at Sheohar. A comprehensive report be submitted in this regard to this Court by 22nd of June, 2026.

Vivek Ranjan Maitrey, the District Magistrate, Siwan informed that "about 35 acres of land has been identified for construction of civil court campus and proposal for acquisition of land has been sent to the Law Department on 10th April, 2026." The Court directed that the Law Department should do the needful and expedite the process for acquisition. So far as Excise Court building is concerned, it has been agreed in course of interaction that the District Magistrate, Siwan shall go for hiring a suitable building/accommodation from where Excise Court may be run. For this purpose, he will come up with expression of interest at the earliest opportunity. We call for a report in this regard by 22nd of June, 2026.

Shekhar Anand, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura informed that "construction work of Excise Court is going on. The work could start with some delay only because work order was issued by the Building Construction Department recently in the year 2026." He has informed that the building would be completed by February, 2027. The Court directed "the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura and the Secretary, Building Construction Department to ensure completion of the building at the earliest preferably by the end of this year. There is already significant delay in start of the work. An updated report showing progress in construction be submitted to this Court by 27th July, 2026.

The Court also directed the Registrar General, Patna High Court "to call for a report from all the Principal District Judges of the Districts across the State with regard to the updated position of the construction of the Excise Court building and submit a report to this Court.

The legal journalists of state failed to seize the opportunity of reporting the state of infrastructural deficiency in almost all the districts of Bihar. The editors of these newspaper ought to seek a written explanation for such glaring failure on the part of the legal reporters who cover High Court. The submission of DMs in the Court and the coincidence use of similar language "land has been identified for construction of civil court" by most of the DMs is curious and remains newsworthy.

These glaring facts and data make the situation ripe for rigorous reporting of courts but legal journalists of the newspapers have failed to sense news in the dire situation about lack of human power and infrastructure for judges, advocates and litigants. Constitution of India promises “complete justice” to citizens but paucity of basic judicial infrastructure and human power delivers incomplete justice.  

Made-to-Order News

Financial constraints have led to practices such as "chequebook journalism," where some journalists accept payments for stories, quid pro quo assignments and gifts compromising objectivity. "Brown envelope journalism" is prevalent, with some reporters allegedly accepting cash due to low salaries, undermining the credibility of an independent press. The brown envelope is non-transparent. They are practicing embedded journalism.   

By now it has emerged that “Paid News” is not about corruption of individual rogue journalists, it is about internalizing the abnormal as normal, immoral as moral and decline in journalistic practice as natural and innocent. Most legal journalists in Bihar do not report adequately about it due myriad constraints.

In Dr. Ranganathan Rajya Pustakalaya Samiti & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench  of Chief Justice Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered an elaborate order on May 15, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"In the eyes of the law, a vacant librarian post, especially in a University is not merely an administrative oversight; it is seen as a functional breakdown in the "administration of justice" and the "academic health" of an institution. The vacancy of a librarian is not an administrative choice but a failure of the State's duty to provide the necessary infrastructure for education and justice. In the absence of a Librarian, physical collection of books deteriorate without proper preservation protocols, reference services remain absent, institutional subscriptions to journals and databases are not procured, managed, or optimised, and no systematic weeding or collection takes place.. The order was authored by the outgoing chief justice who is retiring on June 4, 2026. The case will now be heard by the next chief justice. The High Court's order dated March 25, 2026 revealed that the post of 289 librarian in various higher educational institutions in the State of Bihar have remained unfilled since 1990. .A copy of the datasheet was furnished to P.K Shahi the Advocate General, who sought some time to obtain instruction. Advocate General sought adjournment on April 30, 2026 and prayed for a short adjournment on May 6, 2026 to ensure filing of a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record necessary facts. The case was filed on December 17, 2020 and registered on January 23, 2021. Significantly, five chief justices, namely, Justices Sanjay Karol, K. Vinod Chandran, Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, P.B. Bajanthri and now Sahoo heard the case since June 2021 but the posts of the librarians have not been filled up. Almost all the legal journalists failed to report about it.  

It is evident that advocates are not trained to be journalists. They suffer from poverty of journalistic imagination. It is high time they desist from riding two horses and doing great disservice to both the professions and to the cause of journalism and justice.     

Dr. Gopal Krishna

(The author is a practicing advocate and a researcher of philosophy, mass communication and law. He is an ex-Fellow, Berlin-based International Research Group on Authoritarianism and Counter Strategies (IRGAC).)