Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Sourendra Pandey uphold judgement of acquittal by Additional District and Sessions Judge-V-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Sitamarhi

In X. vs. 1. The State of Bihar &  Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 11-page long judgement dated September 19, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "25. The learned trial court has stated that the victim had made statement in the FIR as well as in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement about providing a sum of Rs. 17,000/- to the accused, which seems to be suspicious. The doctor had recorded that it was very difficult to say whether rape had occurred or not. 26. We have re-appreciated the entire evidences on the record. This Court comes to a conclusion that no perversity may be found in the judgment of the learned trial court. It is well settled that unless an irresistible conclusion is reached by the Appellate Court that the guilt of the accused-respondent no. 2 is proved beyond all reasonable doubts, the judgment of acquittal need not be interfered with. Taking note of this principle governing an appeal against acquittal, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 27. This appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. Let a copy of this judgment along with the trial court’s record be sent down to the learned trial court." 

The appeal has been preferred under proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated January 23, 2025 in a Sessions Trial of 2022, arising out of Sahiyara P.S. Case No.47 of 2022, J.R. No.943 of 2022 (State of Bihar vs. Victim 'X') passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-V-cum-Exclusive Special Judge (Rape and POCSO), Sitamarhi. The Trial Court acquitted the sole accused (respondent no.2 before this Court) of the charges/offences punishable under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC. 

The prosecution case is based on a written information submitted by the victim (P.W.6) on April 9, 2022. In her written information, she has declared her age as 26 years and the date of occurrence has been set up as that of seven years ago. The victim (P.W. 6) has stated that there was an affair between her and the accused outside the marriage and on the pretext of marrying her, the accused established illegal physical relationship on many occasions. About five years ago, there was a panchayti by the village panchans on the issue and thereafter, the accused had gone outside. It is stated that about two years back the accused-respondent no. 2 came and told the victim that he would marry her, thereafter, he again started establishing illegal relationship with her and whenever she used to tell him to marry her, then he was promising her that he would definitely marry her and that she should not be worried about it. She has stated that when she started pressurizing the accused to solemnize marriage then the accused refused to marry her and he was ready to go outside on 13.04.2022, therefore, the victim ‘X’ came to the police station and submitted a written information.

On the basis of the said written information, Sahiyara P.S. Case dated April 9, 2022, was registered under Sections 376/506 of the IPC against respondent no. 2. After investigation, police submitted a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 100 of 2022 dated June 5, 2022 under Section 376/504 IPC against respondent no. 2. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sitamarhi vide order dated July 26, 2022 took cognizance of the offence and vide order dated July 29, 2022 committed the records to the court of sessions. Charges were read over in Hindi and explained to respondent no. 2 to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated November 22, 2022, charges were framed against him under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC. 6. In course of the trial, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and got exhibited various documentary evidence. 

Justice Prasad who authored the Division Bench verdict recorded: "14. This Court finds that the victim has herself deposed as PW-6. She has reiterated her version in her examination-in-chief. It has come in her evidence that one Ravi Kumar had written the application, but he had not given his certificate and signature on the application. She has stated that there is no paper about the panchayati held five years ago. She has stated that no correspondence had taken place between her and the accused, but the accused used to talk to her over phone and he was sending some goods for the children. She had not stated anyone that she had been in love affair with the accused-respondent no. 2. She has stated that, to submit her application, she had gone to the police station with her mother, but her mother had not put her thumb impression or signature thereon. She has stated that the accused had given her medicine about three years ago for purpose of abortion. 15. The defence suggested her that the parents of the accused were helping her family, but when they stopped providing financial assistance, then, with an intention to usurp the money, this false case was registered. The victim (PW-6), however, denied this suggestion. 16. This Court finds that PW-1 and PW-2 are the mother and sister of the victim. They have made their statements on the basis of the information furnished by the victim. 17. PW-2 has stated that her sister’s age at present is 26 years and at the time when she had come in contact with the accused-respondent no. 2, she was 19 years old and was major. 18. PW-3 is another sister of the victim, who has stated about the panchayati, but she did not remember the date of the panchayati and has stated that there was no paper of panchayati. She was suggested by the defence that she was making a statement on the basis of the story told to her by the victim (PW-6).

Reliance in this regard was placed on the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court in the case of XXXX vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.3431 of 2023 reported in 2024 (3) SCC 496, Om Prakash Mishra vs. State of Bihar in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2509 of 2017 reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 507, Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2005 SC 203 and Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2007 (7) SCC 413.

Justice Prasad observed: 23. The learned trial court has noticed that, in this case the victim had set up the date of occurrence which was seven years ago. The victim was herself an adult and was able to understand the consequences of the physical relationship. She claims to have established a physical relationship with the accused-respondent no. 2 for five years and then again for two years. She has stated about her affairs outside the marriage (love affairs) and she has stated in paragraph ‘6’ of her deposition that during the period when she remained with the appellant, she never made any complaint against him for establishing physical relationship. 24. PW-1 has stated that her daughter went for abortion and that it was done with the consent of the respondent no. 2 and her daughter."

Supreme Court directs States of Bihar, Jharkhand to pay a one-time sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of daily-wage employees/workmen engaged, ensure payment of simple interest at rate of 12% per annum on delayed EPF dues, at rate of 6% per annum on delayed salary, wages, other monetary entitlements

Legacy of  Advocate Kapila Hingorani's public interest litigation and self-immolation of Chandan Bhattacharya  

In Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. 2026 INSC 1061, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta delivered a 46-page long judgement dated September 28, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "59.....we deem it appropriate to summarise the directions issued hereinabove as follows:- a. Though the States of Bihar and Jharkhand have substantially issued by this Court in paragraph 37 of the order dated 29th May, 2026, as per their compliance affidavits, certain aspects of such implementation continue to remain pending. The respective States shall, therefore, take all necessary steps to complete the implementation of the aforesaid directions in respect of the cases which remain pending and bring the same to its logical conclusion, in accordance with law. b. The exercise for identification and verification of the remaining employees/workmen shall stand closed. The untraced/unverified employees/workmen or their legal heirs, as the case may be, upon being traced or upon otherwise gaining knowledge of these proceedings would be at liberty to approach the concerned Nodal Officer appointed for the respective Corporation, within a period of 12 months from the date of this order, with the requisite documents for verification, whereupon their claims shall be duly processed and the amounts found payable shall be disbursed in accordance with law. c. With a view to ensuring transparency and facilitating verification of the claims of the employees/workmen of the erstwhile defunct Corporations, the States of Bihar and Jharkhand shall:  (i) compile and publish, in the public domain, updated particulars of all employees/workmen, including those whose dues have been paid or whose liability has otherwise been discharged and those whose claims remain pending; (ii) in respect of employees/workmen whose dues have been paid or liability discharged, publish their name, designation, period of service, amount payable, amount disbursed, date of disbursement and such other particulars as may be relevant for identification and verification of the claim; (iii) in respect of employees/workmen whose claims remain pending on account of their being untraced, unverified or for want of requisite documents, indicate the present status of the claim, the reason for pendency and the documents or steps required for its processing, together with the contact particulars of the concerned Nodal Officer; (iv) post the aforesaid information on the official websites of the Information and Public Relations Department of the States, as also on the website of the concerned parent Administrative Department of the erstwhile Corporations; and (v) complete the aforesaid publication within four weeks from the date of this order and thereafter update the information periodically to reflect any subsequent verification, payment or discharge of liability. d. The States of Bihar and Jharkhand are directed to pay a one-time sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to each of the concerned daily-wage employees/workmen who were engaged during the relevant period. e. The States of Bihar and Jharkhand shall ensure payment of simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the delayed EPF dues, and at the rate of 6% per annum on the delayed salary, wages and other monetary entitlements, for the period commencing from the date on which the respective amounts became due and payable until the date of their actual payment. f. The liability of the respective State shall be determined in accordance with the mechanism already approved by this Court vide its order dated 29th May, 2026."

Also read: Supreme Court directs Bihar, Jharkhand Govt.s to clear dues of defunct Corporation employees after 25 year delay, post self-immolation of Chandan Bhattacharya

The proceedings had their genesis in the reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar pursuant to the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. The reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Bihar, pursuant to which the State of Jharkhand came to be constituted, gave rise, inter alia, to questions concerning the apportionment and discharge of liabilities, dues and service-related claims of the employees/workmen of five State-owned inter-State corporations, namely, Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd. 1; Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 2; Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd.3; Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd. 4; and Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation Ltd. 5. The controversy, which has its roots in the statutory reorganisation, has since traversed a long and chequered course, necessitating successive rounds of judicial intervention and administrative consideration.

The history of the litigation, including the proceedings in Kapila Hingorani vs. State of Bihar (2003) 6 SCC 1, the subsequent adjudication in relation to the inter-State liabilities, and the constitution and functioning of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Judge (Retd.), Supreme Court of India,7 has been noticed and dealt with in extenso by the Supreme Court in its order dated May 29, 2026. In view of the detailed consideration already undertaken therein, we do not deem it necessary to once again recapitulate the entire course of the litigation. The said order constitutes the backdrop against which the issues presently arising for consideration are required to be examined. By the order dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court considered the Final Report dated April 30, 2026 submitted by the Committee, and accepted its recommendations to the extent indicated in paragraph 37 of the said order. The effect of the said order was to bring finality to the matters in respect of which the recommendations of the Committee were accepted, leaving no room for those issues to be reopened in future. Pursuant to the order dated May 29, 2026, the States of Bihar and Jharkhand filed their respective compliance affidavits in August, 2026, reporting compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court and the disbursement of the principal dues to the identified and verified employees/workmen of the five Corporations. The affidavits set out the corporation-wise position of payments made by the respective States, while also identifying the cases which remain pending on account of the claimants being untraceable, absence of requisite documentation or other verification formalities. 

The respective compliance affidavits filed by the States of Bihar and Jharkhand disclose the following position with regard to the implementation of the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 37 of the order dated May 29, 2026:-The apportionment and fixation of the inter-se liability of the respective States 1. Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd.: Against the assessed liability of Rs.97.50 crore in respect of all 1,256 employees/workmen, the State of Bihar has disbursed Rs.84.10 crore to 1,054 employees/workmen, comprising 587 regular and 467 daily-wage employees/workmen. The State of Jharkhand has transferred Rs.36.01 crore out of its allotted liability of Rs.38.41 crore to the State of Bihar for disbursement to the verified employees/workmen. 

2. Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.: The State of Bihar has paid Rs.25.67 crore towards the principal dues of 403 employees/workmen of Bihar Spun Silk Mill, Bhagalpur and Bihar Scooters Ltd., Fatuha. The State of Jharkhand has disbursed Rs.5.30 crore in respect of 163 allotted employees/workmen of its units, of whom 136 have been paid, while 25 were found to have no outstanding dues. 

3. Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation Ltd.: The State of Bihar has disbursed the salary arrears payable to 67 employees/workmen out of the total 70 employees/workmen of Beltron Video Systems Ltd.8, Hajipur. The State of Jharkhand has transferred Rs.7.22 crore to BSEDC towards its liability in respect of 61 out of 63 employees/workmen allotted to it from BVSL, Ranchi and Beltron Mining Systems Ltd., Dhanbad.

4. Bihar State Forest Development Corporation Ltd.: The State of Bihar has paid the outstanding dues of 201 out of 203 employees/workmen. The State of Jharkhand has discharged its liability towards 36 allotted employees/workmen of the subsidiary units of Bihar Solvents Chemicals Ltd. and Bihar State Tanin Extract Ltd.

5. Bihar State Panchayati Raj Financial Corporation Ltd.: The State of Bihar has paid the principal dues of 90 out of 103 employees/workmen. The State of Jharkhand has disbursed Rs.3.65 crore in respect of 21 out of 26 allotted employees/workmen, while three employees/workmen have been absorbed into regular pensionable service 

Earlier, in Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpati Karam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors. (2017), Patna High Court's Division bench of Justices Dinesh Kumar Singh and Hemant Gupta, the Acting Chief Justice delivered 1 37-page long judgement on 8 February, 2017, wherein it had adjudicated on the following four questions:-(1). Whether the State of Bihar being a sole shareholder of the Boards, Corporations or the Companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 have the responsibility to pay salary and allowances of the employees of the Boards, Corporations and Companies who are unable to pay salary on account of financial constraints.
(2). Whether there is any final direction on the basis of interim orders passed in Kapila Hingorani (I) and Kapila Hingorani (II), when the matter was remitted back to this Court to examine the legal issues. 
(3). Whether the observations made in Kapila Hingorani (I) and (II) are to address the humane problems faced by certain employees of the Boards and Corporations alone.
(4). Whether the judgment in Harihar Yadav‟s case mandates the State of Bihar to pay salary of the employees of all Boards, Corporations and Companies having huge financial burden and whether such financial burden can be passed on to the State of Bihar when the financial allocation towards the salary and allowances of the Boards, Corporations and Companies is a policy decision in economic matters. 

With regard to Question No. 1, Justice Gupta who authored the judgement, concluded:"25. The resume of the precedents on the issue of the liability of the State Government to pay salary and allowances of the employees of the Boards, Corporations and the Companies of which State is a shareholder and are State within the meaning of Article 12, that there is unanimity that the State Government is not liable to pay salary and allowances as they are separate juristic entity. Therefore, neither in law, as the companies are separate and distinct juristic entity than the State Government, the State cannot be directed to pay salary and wages of the employees of such juristic entity. 26. The judgments in Kapila Hingorani (I) and Kapila Hingorani (II) have left the question of liability of the State Government to pay salary and allowances open. The intervention of the Supreme Court was to address humane problem of financial stringency suffered by such employees. Therefore, neither the Kapila Hingorani (I) nor Kapila Hingorni (II) or Harihar Yadav‟s case unequivocally holds the State Government responsible for payment of salary and allowances to the employees of the Boards, Corporations and the Companies, if such Boards, Corporations and the Companies are not able to pay salary and allowances due to financial stringency on any ground whatsoever." He referred decisions Kapila Hingorani (I)(2003)6 SCC 1 and Kapila Hingorani (II)(2005) 2 SCC 262.   

With regard to Question No. 2, Justice Gupta noted: "27. In Barak Upatyaka's case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the observations and directions in Kapila Hingorani (I) and Kapila Hingorani (II) are the interim directions based on tentative reasons and have no value as precedent. Such interim directions were given in extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution." He referred to to the decision in State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha, (2009) 5 SCC 694. He added:"28. The final order of the Supreme Court is a direction to the High Court to examine the legal issues and that the legal issue requires to be examined by this Court is as to whether the State can be called upon to pay salary and allowances to the workers of the Boards, Corporations and Companies incorporated at one stage by the State Government. Therefore, the issue as to whether the State Government is liable for payment of salary and allowance has been left open by the Supreme Court for appropriate decision by this Court."

With regard to Question No. 3, Justice Gupta observed:"29. The observations in Kapila Hingorani (I) and Kapila Hingorani (II) are in fact to address the humane problem as it left the question of liability of the State open. Reference may be made to Paragraph 74 in Kapila Hingorani (I) and Paragraph 37 of Kapila Hingorani (II). 30. Even in Harihar Yadav's case, the dispute was on account of bifurcation of the State and consequently, the liability of the State of Bihar and Jharkhand but again the problem was addressed as a humane problem."  He referred to the decision in State of Jharkhand & Anr vs. Harihar Yadav and others, (2014) 2 SCC 114.

With regard to Question No. 4, Justice Gupta observed:"31. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the writ-applicants bearing L.P.A. No. 1940 of 2015. The learned Single Bench has ordered the State to deposit Rs. 10 crores to meet any financial emergency required by any of the employees is without any mechanism as to how any claim of any of the employees can be examined and paid. We do not find that such direction warrants any interference in the present Letters Patent Appeals as it is to address the humane problem but we direct that Hon‟ble Mr. Justice Udai Sinha shall constitute one member Committee to disburse the said the procedure to be devised by him. 32. With the aforesaid direction, both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed."  

Subsequent to this judgement by Justice Gupta, in The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Bihar State Ardh Sarkari Arajpatrit Karamchari Maha Sangh & Ors. (2018), a 6-page judgement was delivered by the Division Bench of Justices Dr Ravi Ranjan and Madhuresh Prasad on October 3, 2018, wherein, it recorded: "It is jointly submitted at the Bar that the issue, which is involved in these appeals as well as the writ petitions from which the appeals have arisen, has already been set at rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLA (Civil) No 16159 of 2017. The Supreme Court has held that in view of Resolution of the State of Bihar dated 14.03.2018 with respect to the employees of various Corporations, nothing further would be required to be done in the SLP. Such observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been made with respect to the Resolution dated 14.03.2018 under which the mechanism and procedure have been set up for dealing with the issue for payment of the arrears of the employees of the various Corporations. A copy of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Resolution dated 14.03.2018 of the State of Bihar have been produced by the learned counsel for the appellants. Let them be kept on record. 3 In our view, these appeals have, thus, become infructuous and, as such, the same stand disposed of."

It may be recalled that the Court had passed judgement dated May 9, 2003, judgement dated January 13, 2005 and  judgement dated July 8, 2008.  In its 2003 judgement in Kapila Hingorani case, it was recorded:"A newspaper report as regard non-payment of salary for a long time resulting in starvation highlighted the case of one Chandan Bhattacharya, son of an employee of the Bihar State Agro-Industries Development Corporation who tried to immolate himself. The incident was widely reported, inter alia, in ’The Hindustan Times’, Delhi Edition, on 19.9.2002 under the caption "Empty coffers drive staff to self-immolation bids". The said Chandan Bhattacharya later on succumbed to the burn injuries suffered by him. In this writ petition, the writ petitioner, a public spirited citizen and a Supreme Court lawyer, alleged that apart from plight of the employees of the public sector undertakings or the statutory authorities, even the teaching and non-teaching staff of Aided and Unaided Schools, Madrassas and Colleges have been facing a similar fate. We, however, as at present advised do not intend to deal with the same. According to the petitioner, from a newspaper report it would appear that about 250 employees died due to starvation or committed suicide owing to acute financial crisis resulting from non-payment of remunerations to them for a long time. The report further goes on to say that the leader of the opposition in the Bihar Assembly had alleged that over 1000 employees died "due to lack of salary for a period ranging from four months to 94 months". In its counter affidavit, the State of Bihar does not deny about the factual statement made in the said writ petition...." 

Later, a 3-Judge Bench of the Court had passed an order dated August 9, 2010, wherein, it had concluded:"The issues involved in these cases basically are legal issues. They will have to be gone into by the concerned High Courts. This Court has so far monitored the matter to its best possible ability. In the circumstances, we request the High Court to examine these matters in the PIL and pass appropriate orders in these PILs as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Registrar General of the High Court. The attention of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court may be drawn to this Order. We request the High Court to consider the orders passed by this Court giving appropriate directions from time to time in these cases. We also direct the High Court to consider making interim payments to the affected persons including medical treatment. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. In view of the order passed in the writ petition, no orders are required to be passed on the interlocutory applications." 

Patna High Court disposes intra court appeal filed by Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., the publisher of The Times of India against Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna

Judgement reveals that a case can be filed against the Presiding Officer of a Court 

In M/s. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd., (Patna Establishment) vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna (2026), Patna High Court's Justices Sudhir Singh and Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered a 3-page long judgement dated September 29 2026, wherein, it concluded:.”5. In view of the fact that the review application is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and the issues involved therein, may have a bearing on the present appeal, we are of the view that it would not be appropriate to proceed with the present intra court appeal at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the present intra court appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant to challenge the order that may be passed in Civil Review No. 257 of 2024, as well as any consequential order(s), if so advised. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of." The judgement was authored by Justice Singh. 

The intra court appeal was preferred against the order dated February 9, 2024 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9511 of 2008, which was filed and registered on June 27, 2008. So far the civil writ has been heard by 13 different judges during November 12, 2013-October 8, 2025. 

In course of hearing, the High Court noted that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Harendra Pratap Singh and Sharad Ranjan Prasad, have preferred Civil Review No. 257 of 2024 before the Single Judge. In the review application, the Single Judge passed following order dated March 26, 2025:-

“The petitioner in the present CWJC has filed the application seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court on 09.02.2024. 2. The petitioner in the review application has filed an O.A. 1820 of 2012 before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. Herein it is stated that the petitioner was working as a Hindi Senior Journalist with the Nav Bharat Times (NBT) and thereafter in the audio/visual medium with Doordarshan and All India Radio and for a year with Dainik Jagran. Having regard to the fact that the issue in the present writ petition is to whether the petitioner is entitled for any payment of back wages for the period 20.03.1995 till 09.06.1999 i.e. date of retrenchment till the date of employment. It is necessary that the petitioner shall file an affidavit along with the requisite documents showing his employment with Nav Bharat Times (NBT), Doordarshan, All India Radio and Dainik Jagran by way of a supplementary affidavit. 3. The Supplementary Affidavit shall contain the details of the employment and the number of dates that the petitioner has worked with each group. 4. Post this matter on 29.04.2025."

Patna High Court's points out defect in writ petition by Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh, a recognized but unincoporated association

The term "body corporate" or “corporation” includes a company incorporated outside India, but does not include—(i) a co-operative society registered under any law relating to co-operative societies; and (ii) any other body corporate (not being a company as defined in the Companies Act 2013), which the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf.

-Section 2(11), The Companies Act, 2013

In Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), the registry of Patna High Court has cited a Rule to raise an objection which reads:”All the members of Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh/petitioner may be made party accordingly, court fee and w.s may be filed.”W.S refers to Welfare Stamp. In his order dated September 21, 2026, Justice Anshuman granted two weeks’ time "to remove the defect as pointed out by the Office or to take steps to contest the defect, failing which the present writ application stands rejected without further reference to a Bench. 3. As such, put up this case on 06/10/2026 under appropriate heading." The Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is a recognised association under Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 framed by a notification dated July 20, 1960. The Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 or Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 deal merely with the recognition of service associations. The State of Bihar had issued the notification in purported exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article-309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 4 of the said Rules lays down condition for recognition of service association and Rule 5 lays down the conditions subject to which the recognition is granted. It is patent that a legal proceeding can be maintained only by an individual or other body which is recognised as a legal person. 

It is apparent that Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is not an incorporated body but it relies on the fact that it has been ‘recognised’ by the State Government according to the Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 made in exercise of powers conferred by Article 309 of the Constitution "Recognition, however, gives an employees' association only a status in its relationship and dealings with the employer i.e the Government. It has nothing to do with the representation of its members in a litigation before a Court of law." In Director General Ordnance Factories Employees' Association vs. Union of India & Or.s (1986) AIR 1969 CAL 149, Calcutta High Court observed:"9. In the case of a body incorporated by law, the corporate body acquires a legal personality of itself and is as such entitled to maintain legal proceedings. But an unincorporated association has no legal personality and it is nothing but an aggregation of its members who can only bring legal proceedings in their individual capacity. Even when all of them are affected by an official act, they can challenge that only if all the members loin in the proceedings by name; the association, in such a case, cannot maintain an application under Article 220 or other legal proceeding, in its own name, as has been established by a number of decisions (Indian Sugar Mills Assocn. v. Secy. to Govt. U. P. Labour Dept. (FB); General Secy. Eastern Zone Insurance Employees' Assocn. v. Zonal Manager. Eastern Zone Life Insurance Corporation and even registration under the Societies Registration Act cannot confer this right. (Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. District Magistrate, Bangalore, AIR 1951 Mys 14). 10. To the foregoing general rule, certain exceptions have been introduced by the provisions of certain special statutes, e.g.,--(i) A registered union is made a body corporate by Section 13 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and is empowered to sue and be sued in its own name. (ii) Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an association of workmen has a right to raise industrial disputes and to represent the workmen throughout the proceedings (Ramprasad v. Chairman. Industrial Tribunal, Patna ) and can thus move against an award under the Act (W. B. P. W. Union v. A. U. P. Works, Private Ltd. ). (iii) Under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, even an unincorporated association can make a representation in the matter of grant of a permit and can pursue that right in a proceeding under Article 226 (Sabitri Motor Service v. Asansol Bus Assocn (SB))."

It added:"15. Even where an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226 only when its rights as a collective body as distinguished from the aggregate rights of its members are affected by the act challenged in the proceedings (Chiranjit Lal v. Union of India. ; Govt. Press Employees' Assocn. v. Govt. of Mysore, AIR 1962 Mys 25; Barrackpore Bus Syndicate v. Serajuddin , e.g., where it is already a party to the impugned order, as in)." But if the collective existence or interests of the association as such is affected, an association is permitted by law to bring a legal proceeding, it can bring an application under Article 226.

In S.P Gupta vs. Union of India, as reported in 1981 Supp SCC 87 : AIR 1982 SC 149, Supreme Court has held that poverty, helplessness and disability or social or economic disadvantaged position was considered a sufficient ground for maintaining the writ petition by persons other than aggrieved. The following criteria are to be kept in mind for the locus standi in such type of cases:—

(a) That the members of the said association should have sufficient strength so as to come in the category of a large section of public,

(b) That the members should be identifiable,

(c) That the members must be of the category of poor/illiterate/helpless or disabled.

(d) That the individual members must not be capable of filing a writ petition.

(e) That the entire body of the members must authorize the association to protect their legal rights:

(f) That such an association must have its own constitution, and

(g) That there must be authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members.

It is not clear as to whether Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh has the authority to file this writ petition on behalf of its Members and in absence of such resolution. If there is no  authority to file a writ petition on behalf of all the members, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition. The fact about registration of the petitioner has also not been stated in this writ petition and, therefore, this writ petition is not tenable in law. The mere fact of its recognition under Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 does not make Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh, a legal person. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, as reported in AIR 1984 All 46 (FB). At paragraph 20, it reads: “20. To summarise, the position appears to be that an association of persons, registered or unregistered, can file a petition under Article 226 for enforcement of the rights of its members as distinguished from the enforcement of its own rights—(1) In case members of such an association are themselves unable to approach the Court by reason of poverty, disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position “little Indians”. (2) In case of a public injury leading to public interest litigation provided the association has some concern deeper than that of a wayfarer or a busybody i.e it has a special interest in the subject-matter. (3) Where the rules or regulations of the association specifically authorize it to take legal proceedings on behalf of its members, so that any order passed by the Court in such proceedings will be binding on the members.15. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of The R.S.E.B Accountants v. The Rajasthan State Electricity, decided on 30th June, 1995, as reported in 1995 (3) WLC 1 (Full Bench), that if all the conditions of clauses (a) to (g), as referred to above in the earlier paragraphs, are fulfilled, then only the unregistered Association can file a writ petition, otherwise such Association cannot file a writ petition, alleging breach of fundamental rights, as the Association by itself has no fundamental right of its own.

The same view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in Parents Teachers Association v. Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, as reported in AIR 2001 Raj 35. 

This objection of the registry of the Patna High Court appears to be contrary to the observations of Supreme Court’s 3-Judge Bench of V.R. Krishnaiyer, R.S. Pathak and O. Chinnappa Reddy in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railways) vs Union of India & Ors. 1981 AIR 298. Justice Krishnaiyer observed: “Our current processual jurisprudence is not of individualistic Anglo-Indian mould. It is broad-based and people-oriented, and envisions access to justice through 'class actions', 'public interest litigation', and 'representative proceedings'. Indeed, little Indians in large numbers seeking remedies in courts through collective proceedings, instead of being driven to an expensive plurality of litigations, is an affirmation of participative justice in our democracy. We have no hesitation in holding that the narrow concept of 'cause of action' and 'person aggrieved' and individual litigation is becoming obsolescent in some jurisdictions.” 

But this view and the earlier view taken by various courts in India that the registered societies were legal persons and they could sue or be sued in their own name; and that Section 6 of the  Societies Registration Act was only an enabling (or added) provision to sue or be sued in the name of the president, secretary, etc.. 

It has been held in Shanti Sarup vs. Radhaswami Satsang Sabha, Dayalbagh Agra: AIR 1969 All. 248; K.C. Thomas vs. R.B. Gadaook, AIR 1970 Pat 163;  Khiri Ram Gupta & Anr. vs. Nana Lal:  AIR 1964 Pat. 114, Satyavart Sidhantalankar vs. Arya Samaj, Bombay : AIR 1946 Bom. 516; Nabadwip Bhajan Asram vs. Commissioner of Nabadwip Municipality: AIR 1959 Cal 361; Sonar Bangala Bank vs. Calcutta Engineering College: AIR 1960 Cal 409 that societies were legal persons does not hold good in the light of Unani Tibia College case, AIR 1962 SC 458, Illachi Devi case,  AIR 2003 SC 3397, and Tata vs. Tata,  AIR 2010 SC 2943.

In Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi vs. The State, AIR 1962 SC 458, it is held that the registration of Societies under the Central or State Societies Registration Act does not give the society a corporate status.  

In Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India: AIR 2003 SC 3397, it is held that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act as a society even after registration does not become distinct from its members and does not become a separate legal person like a company. 

In n Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs. Union of India, 2023-3 SCC 1, the Court referred to its decision in Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India (2003) 8 SCC 413, and "applied the plain meaning rule and held that said expression would not include a society registered under the Societies Registration Act as a society even after registration does not become distinct from its members and does not become a separate legal person like a company."

In Illachi Devi vs. Jain Society Protection of Orphans India, AIR2003 SC 3397, the Court held: i) The mere fact of registration will not make a society distinct from association of persons. (Para 20) ii) A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a body-corporate as is the case in respect of a company registered under the Companies Act. In that view of the matter, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act is not a juristic person.  (Para 21, iii) A society, whether registered or unregistered, may not be prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property or of suing or being sued in its own name. (Para 22), iv) Vesting of property does not take place in the Society. Similarly, the society cannot sue or be sued. It must sue or be sued through a person nominated in that behalf. (Para 26). It has been held that a society or a club, both registered and unregistered, is the compendium of its members. When it sues or is sued all its members should be made parties. The registration of Societies under the Central or State Societies Registration Act does not give the society a corporate status. It has been held in Board of Trustees, Ayurvedic & Unani Tibia College, Delhi vs. The State: AIR 1962 SC 458. and Tata vs. Tata, AIR 2010 SC 2943. The common expression, ‘suit by or against a society’, legally and virtually denotes suit by or against its entire members. 

Notably, a the writ petition, filed by the Judicial Officers' Association, Goa, was dismissed by Panaji Bench of Bombay High Court, as reported in (1996) 2 Mah LR 94 : (1997) 4 Bom CR 372 (The Goa Judicial Officers Association v. State of Goa), on the ground that it was not tenable at law, because the Members of the Association were capable of approaching the Court and while dismissing the said writ petition. At paragraph 27,29 and 30, it reads:“27. The Senior counsel Mr. Kakodkar, who is appearing for the High Court, has contended that a writ petition on behalf of petitioner Association is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is not the person aggrieved. In other words, he submits that the petitioner cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. He has contended that even if the petitioner is a Corporate Body registered under the Societies Act, the petitioner cannot maintain a petition under Article 226 for and on behalf of its members. He has cited several decisions of different High Courts: (Madhav Janardan v. Shrinivas Narayan Naik) 14, AIR 1962 Mysore 26, (Director General Ordinance Factories Employees' Association v. Union of India and Director General Ordinance Factories) 15, AIR 1969 Cal 149, (Satyavart Sidhantalankar v. Arya Samaj, Bombay) 16, AIR 1946 Bom 516 and (Chanranjit Lal Chowdhury v. The Union of India) 17, AIR 1951 SC 41. We find considerable force in his arguments. A juristic person can maintain an action only when it is aggrieved or when its rights are infringed or violated by the action of an Authority. Here the grievance highlighted is that of the members and that grievance is that by the impugned Rules, the promotional avenues available to members of the petitioner's Association under the existing Rules have been taken away and, therefore, their chances of promotion have been in jeopardy. As we have already seen, that chance of promotion is not a right at all and, therefore, the members of the Association cannot have a legal right to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from that, the petitioner, as an Association of the Judicial Officers, cannot identify itself with the grievances of its members. The grievances of the members and the Association are distinct. This elementary principle has been stated by Salmond in ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’. 12th Edition, at page 67, which reads thus:—“It is essential to recognise clearly that in neither of these forms of incorporation is the legal person identical with any single human being. A company is in law something different from its shareholders or members. The property of the company is not in law the property of the shareholders. The debts and liabilities of the company are not attributed in law to its members. The company may become insolvent, while its members remain rich. Contracts may be made between the company and a shareholder, as if between two persons entirely distinct from each other. The shareholders may become so reduced in number that there is only one of them left; but he and the company will be distinct persons for all that." 

It added: "In the case of (The Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association v. The District Magistrate, Bangalore) 18, AIR 1951 Mys 14, the Bangalore District Hotel Owners' Association filed an application before Mysore High Court against the District Magistrate, Bangalore and the Government of Mysore to cancel the order of the District Magistrate, Bangalore, notified in the Mysore Gazette on 10-11-1949, directing that all hotels, restaurants, milk bars and coffee clubs in the villages of the Bangalore District except those as are licensed by the Amildar of the Taluka under the Village Panchayat Act should be closed immediately. The hotel owners of Bangalore formed an Association and the said Association is said to have been registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1904. That Association challenged the validity of the Notification issued by the District Magistrate, Bangalore. A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court in the aforesaid decision in paragraph 5 of the judgment, held as follows:—“Mr. Venkataranga Iyengar contends that the Association is a corporate body and that it can therefore make such application to the Court in its own name. Under Section 7, Societies Registration Act, it is provided that a society which is registered under that Act may sue or be sued in its own name and for that purpose it may have a corporate existence of its own. And if there was any action or order by which the fundamental rights of the Association as such, say for example, under Article 19(b) or (c) or its rights of property or franchise were affected or jeopardised, it may be that such an application may be maintainable. But that is quite a different thing from saying that for some personal and individual grievance of some of its members the Association can agitate and apply for such extraordinary and discretionary writs which are clearly meant to prevent the taking away or abridging the fundamental rights conferred on individual citizens by Part III of the Constitution. Although no specific cases appear to have arisen on this aspect of the matter after the Constitution of India came into force we have some earlier rulings which are useful in deciding the matter”. 

The Court noted that considering various decisions of the High Courts and Supreme Court on the subject, the Calcutta High Court in Sand Carrier's Owners' Union vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta and others 19, AIR 1990 Cal 176, has held that the Company has no locus standi for the grievances of the petitioner. It held:—“Unincorporated associations are not legal persons and as such, writ petitions are not maintainable. An association could be formed to protect the interest of consumers, tenants or other groups with the common interest but such group cannot move writ application. No aspect of the representative law has been changing more rapidly than the law governing standing and the standing barrier has been substantially lowered in recent years, but on the basis of the law relating to standing as in England or in America as also in India, it can be held without any difficulty that the writ petition at the instance of an association is not maintainable where the association itself is not affected by any order. The members of such association may be affected by common order and may have common grievance, but for the purpose of enforcing the rights of the members, writ petition at the instance of such association is not maintainable. The door of the writ Court could be made open at the instance of persons or authorities under the aforesaid four categories and to hold that every Tom, Dick and Harry can move the writ application would render the standing requirement meaningless and would introduce a procedure which is not judicially recognised”. In this writ petition, the petitioner association of Judicial Officers of Goa. has not highlighted any grievance of its own, it has put up a grievance of its members. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel Shri Kakodkar the petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Existence of a right of the petitioner is the foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 by this Court. The petitioner, even if it is a registered Association cannot identify itself with the grievance of its members and maintain a writ petition unless a statute provides for such a right as has been done by Trade Union Act Motor Vehicles Act. Industrial Disputes Act etc. Therefore, we have no hesitation to uphold the contention of Mr. Kakodkar that this petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner." 

Given the fact that Bihar Rajya Panchayat Sachiv Sangh is a recognised association under The Bihar Sarkari Sevak (Seva Sanghon Ko Manyata) Niyamawali, 1960 or Bihar Government Servants (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1960 which deals merely with the recognition of service associations, not with incorporation, it cannot file a writ as a legal person unless all the members are impleaded.  

 

Justice Nani Tagia sets aside termination order by District Magistrate, Buxar based on a photograph published in Dainik Bhaskar, show cause by District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar

Can a photograph in Dainik Bhaskar or any newspaper reveal whether or not someone is drunk?  

In Rajesh Kumar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Nani Tagia delivered a 19-page long judgement wherein, he drew on two decision of the Supreme Court to conclude:"....it appears to be the law that when an employee, even if such an employee is temporary one, is sought to be terminated on a charge of bribery-which is punitive-it becomes necessary to hold an enquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. Even in the case of minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say in the matter and if the charges are factual and are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be held. That is for the reason that adherence to the principle of natural justice cannot be dispensed with in such circumstances. 34. In view of the legal position and the finding recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dated 13.07.2019, terminating the petitioner’s contractual service from the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Offv bice, Buxar, without holding an enquiry with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, cannot be sustained in law. 35. Accordingly, the impugned Office Order No. 40/2019-20, dated 13.07.2019 (Annexure-9), issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, terminating the petitioner’s contractual service from the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Officer, Buxar and the show cause notice dated 01.07.2019 (Annexure –6) issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Office, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar are hereby set aside and quashed. 36. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service forthwith with all the consequential benefits."  

The writ application was filed by the petitioner challenging the Office Order issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, whereby the petitioner’s contractual service on the post of Executive Assistant, Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar was terminated. The show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar was also challenged. The petitioner, vide a order dated October 30, 2012 was appointed on the post of Executive Assistant in the District Mid-Day Meal Scheme Office, Buxar on contract basis by the District Magistrate, Buxar. While the petitioner was working as such, a show cause notice dated July 1, 2019 was issued to him along with two other persons, namely, Manoj Kumar Singh and Sudehi Rai (both contractors), by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, wherein, it was stated that on June 30, 2019, Buxar edition of Dainik Bhaskar featured a photograph of the petitioner consuming alcohol in a vehicle along with two contractors and some unidentified persons. The following day, i.e. on July 1, 2019, the same newspaper published the petitioner’s name regarding the alleged alcohol consumption. In the show cause notice, it was also stated that the District Magistrate, Buxar, had taken cognizance of the matter, noting that the Bihar Government has strictly prohibited the sale and consumption of alcohol and consuming alcohol in the State is an offence. As such, the petitioner was directed to submit a clarification within 24 hours of receiving the notice. Subsequently, an FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 was also lodged under Section 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018 against the petitioner and others. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued by the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, the petitioner submitted his reply on July 6, 2019, to the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day-Meal Scheme, Buxar. In his response, the petitioner denied the allegation of consumption of alcohol stating that the allegation levelled against him is false and the news item was published in the newspaper due to the prevailing rural politics. 

The District Magistrate, Buxar, finding the reply submitted by the petitioner unsatisfactory, terminated the contractual service of the petitioner vide the impugned order dated July 13, 2019 with immediate effect by holding that as the consumption of alcohol is prohibited and is considered an offence in the State of Bihar, consumption of alcohol by the petitioner signifies his indiscipline. 

The petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application dated December 18, 2019 before the District Magistrate, Buxar with a prayer to allow him to rejoin the service contending that in the FIR being Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 registered against him under Section 37(C) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2018, the Investigating Officer has submitted a final report stating that there is no evidence against the petitioner suggesting commission of the alleged offence. 

Did Dainik Bhaskar report about the Investigating Officer's final report when its report turned to be fake? Did the editor of the newspaper seek an explanation from its Buxar based reporter? High Court ought to have sought an explanation from the newspaper in question?

The application of the petitioner was forwarded by the Deputy Collector, Establishment, Buxar to the District Programme Officer, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Buxar, seeking a report for further action to be taken in the matter. In response to the Deputy Collector’s letter dated March 14, 2020, the District Programme Officer, vide letter dated June 10, 2020, confirmed the final report submitted by the police in Muffasil P.S. Case No. 181 of 2019 and also apprised that no other person has been appointed to the post previously held by the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not receive any favorable response regarding his reinstatement despite the submission of the aforementioned application and the ensuing inter-departmental communications, he filed the writ petition challenging the impugned termination order dated July 13, 2019, issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned termination order was issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, solely on the basis of a photograph published in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper dated June 30, 2019, allegedly showing the petitioner consuming alcohol. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities summarily terminated the petitioner’s contractual services without conducting any departmental enquiry, despite the petitioner’s categorical denial of the allegations in his show-cause reply. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent authorities acted in a most unfair manner, violating the principles of natural justice and denying the petitioner an opportunity of a hearing to defend himself. Therefore, the impugned order of termination issued by the District Magistrate, Buxar, cannot withstand the legal scrutiny of this Court and is liable to be set aside and quashed. 

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of the High Court, which is as follows:-
(i) Sur Enamel And Stamping Works Ltd. Versus Workmen reported in 1963 SCC Online SC 97.
(ii) O.K. Bhardwaj Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 180.
(iii) Hari Ram Maurya Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 167.
(iv) Amit Kumar versus The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No.5537 of 2020).

Dainik Bhaskar fails Breath Analyser Test reveals ignorance about Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025, I.O. of the case passes the test 

The District Programme Officer, Mid Day Meal Scheme, Buxar issued a letter dated July 1, 2019 asking the petitioner along with two others to clarify within 24 hours of the receipt of the letter regarding the photograph featured in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper dated June 30, 2019 of the petitioner and others consuming alcohol. It also stated that the name of the petitioner was again published in the same newspaper on July 1, 2019 alleging consumption of alcohol by the petitioner  to exploit the petitioner due to the prevailing rural politics. 

Justice Tagia recorded: "The impugned order of termination has been passed thereafter on the basis of aforenoted two letters. It, thus, is evident from the impugned order of termination itself that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the petitioner’s service has been terminated only on the basis of aforenoted two letters dated 01.07.2019 and 08.07.2019, respectively. 27. Since the petitioner was a contractual employee, no specific service rules regulating the disciplinary proceeding against him appears to be in vogue. What, therefore, arises for determination by this Court is whether, in the absence of any specific service rules prescribing the enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner (a contractual employee), a formal enquiry should have been held before the impugned termination order was issued?"

Justice Tagia referred to two decisions rendered by the Supreme Court which was cited by counsel for the
petitioner in this regard and, 

In paragraph 3 of the Supreme Court's decision in Hari Ram Maurya vs Union of India & Ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 167, it has been held: “3. From the order of termination Annexure P-7, it appears that the same refers to the show-cause notice dated 20-8-2002 which is to be found at Annexure P-5. It is stated therein that the appellant demanded kickback with a view to help the complainant to get a favourable order in the pension matter. That being so, there was a clear charge of bribery levelled against the appellant. No doubt, the appellant was a temporary employee, but if he is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary for the respondent Union of India to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law. In this case, admittedly, no inquiry was conducted, and that is obvious even from Annexure P-7, the letter described as disengagement of casual labour. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court as also the order of termination Annexure P-7 dated 30-09-2002. This, however, will not prevent the respondents from taking action in accordance with law.” 

In the case of Hari Ram Maurya, where the appellant, who was a temporary employee, was terminated on a charge of bribery without holding an inquiry, it has been held that if the employee is sought to be removed on the ground that he was guilty of the charge of bribery, it becomes necessary to hold an inquiry and thereafter to act in accordance with law, even if the employee was a “temporary employee”.

In paragraph Nos. 2 and 3 of the decision in the Supreme Court in O.K. Bhardwaj vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 180, it has been held: “2. The High Court has recorded its opinion on two questions: (i) that the punishment imposing stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is not a major penalty but a minor penalty; (ii) in the case of minor penalties, “it is not necessary to give opportunity to the employee to give explanation and it is also not necessary to hear him before awarding the penalty”: a detailed departmental enquiry is also not contemplating in a case in which minor penalty is to be awarded. 3. While we agree with the first proposition of the High Court having regard to the rule position which expressly says that “withholding increments of pay with or without cumulative effect” is a minor penalty, we find it not possible to agree with the second proposition. Even in the case of a minor penalty an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him. Moreover, if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for. This is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.” 

In O.K. Bhardwaj's case, the Court has held that even in the case of a minor penalty, an opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to have his say or to file his explanation with respect to the charges against him and if the charges are factual and if they are denied by the delinquent employee, an enquiry should also be called for, which is the minimum requirement of the principle of natural justice and the said requirement cannot be dispensed with.

Although no Breath Analyser Test, Blood and Urine Test done on the petitioner to ascertain the veracity of the fake news published by Dainik Bhaskar and although the I.O. found no evidence of alleged offence, Justice Tagia added: "37. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner by strictly following the due process of law, if so advised. 38. The writ petition is allowed in above terms and the same stands disposed of."  

Dainik Bhaskar was one of the newspapers which had published a similar news about an advocate of the Patna High Court, the advocate has filed a case against it and others who reported without ascertaining the results of the Breath Analyser Test, Blood and Urine Test? 

Also read: Legal reporting in Bihar fails Breath analyser test, reveals ignorance about Legal Metrology (General) Sixth Amendment Rules, 2025

Patna High Court's Division Bench upholds judgement of 2023 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, petitioner's counsels disregarded Full Bench judgment based on Supreme Court's judgement

In Rajeev Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 6-page long judgement dated September 22, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"....The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. 8. We are of the view that the appeal apart from being without merit is also barred by delay of 771 days. The appeal is dismissed both on merits and on delay." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Rao. This is his 9th judgement as Chief Justice Patna High Court. The Division Bench recorded that he writ petition before the learned Single Judge was second round of litigation by the petitioner. He had earlier approached the High Court in CWJC No. 4156 of 2019, which was disposed on August 8, 2019. 

 In his 5-page long impeccable judgement dated May 3, 2023, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad had concluded:"This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly." 

Justice Prasad had recorded that the "counsel for the petitioner is aware of the Hon’ble Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Niraj Kumar Mallick & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2018 (2) PLJR 951 wherein this Court has considered the government circular/guidelines with regard to the appointment on compassionate ground in a case where the other sibling of the applicant is gainfully employed." This is because drawing on Supreme Court's judgement, he noted that the writ Court has to be conscious of the judicial pronouncements of the Court wherein it has been repeatedly held that a Court has no power to ignore a provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. In Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar 1994 AIR 2148 has held:“the Courts should endeavour to find out whether a particular case in which sympathetic considerations are to be weighed falls within the scope of law. Disregardful of law, however hard the case may be, it should never be done”

Upholding Justice Prasad's judgement, Chief Justice Rao observed:"5. A perusal of the conclusion drawn by the Full Bench, it is clear that pursuant to a public policy inasmuch as where any of the dependents of the deceased Government servant is gainfully employed, no other dependent would be entitled to get the benefit of the compassionate appointment. 6. A reference is also made that the Government has come out with a policy that the dependent who is gainfully employed and living separately from other dependents cannot be a reason to provide appointment. That is, irrespective of that whether employed one lives together or separately, the other dependents would not get the benefit of compassion. 7. If the above being the position and there is no denial to the fact that the eldest son of the deceased employee i.e., the sibling of the petitioner is employed in Andhra Bank, the said policy will come into play. The conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted."  

Bihar Government complies with Supreme Court's directions, Principal District and Sessions Judge made head of Board of Visitors of jails in place of DM

All laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Part, shall, to the extent of such inconsistency, be void.

-Article 13(1), The Constitution of India 

The word untouchable is an epitome of their ills and sufferings. Not only has untouchability arrested the growth of their personality but also it comes in the way of their material well-being. It has also deprived them of certain civil rights….The untouchable is not even a citizen. 

-Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, “Evidence Before the Southborough Committee”, in Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 256

 Caste System is not merely division of labour. It is also a division of labourers. Civilized society undoubtedly needs division of labour. But in no civilized society is division of labour accompanied by this unnatural division of labourers into water-tight compartments. Caste System is not merely a division of labourers which is quite different from division of labour—it is an hierarchy in which the divisions of labourers are graded one above the other.

-“Annihilation of Caste” in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar: Writings and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 47 

Ahead of the upcoming hearing of the Supreme Court on November 3, 2026, on September 23, 2026, the Bihar Cabinet approved amendments to Rule 743 of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, in compliance with the Supreme Court''s orders of July 30 and September 10, 2026, in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).-10/2024, Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons In India. 

The Supreme Court's 6-page long order dated September 10, 2026 reads: "3. We give one last opportunity to place on record a comprehensive report explaining in what manner our order dated 30.07.2026 has been complied with. We make it clear that by the next date of hearing, we want a report indicating that all the States/Union Territories district-wise have constituted the Board of Visitors headed by the Principal District Judge."  

In compliance with a Supreme Court's order regarding the appointment of official and non-official visitors for all prisons, the State Government has amended the rules of the Bihar Prison Manual. The term "District Magistrate," which previously appeared in the regulations concerning the prison system and visitor arrangements, has been replaced with "District and Sessions Judge." A Board of Visitors will now be constituted, and under the new rules, it will be headed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge.

The unamended Rule 743 of Bihar Prison Manual reads: "Rule 743 Board of visitors.—The official and non-official visitors to all the prisons in the district shall constitute a Board of Visitors, of which the District Magistrate shall be the ex-officio chairperson. Official and non-official visitors shall jointly visit the prisons in the district atleast once in each quarter."  

The head of the Board of Visitors of jails will now be the Principal District Judge. A major change has been made in the administration of Bihar’s jails. The inspection by Board of Visitors’ team has been made mandatory to inspect the district jails at least once every three months. Now, it will be compulsory to visit and inspect the jails in the districts. During the inspection, the Board of Visitors of the jail will assess the arrangements on the jail campus, cleanliness, food, security, and the inmates. The command will not remain with the DM. The legal and basic facilities available to the inmates will be reviewed directly at the level of the judicial Principal District and Sessions Judge. 

This is being done in compliance with Supreme Court's directions in para 225-227 of the judgement dated October 3, 204 in Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024) which reads:"225 Apart from this, a Board of Visitors is constituted, as per the Model Prison Manual 2016, at a district level. The Board comprises of: “29.03 The Board of Visitors shall comprise the following official members:
a) The District Judge at the District level, or the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate exercising Jurisdiction, at Sub-Division level
b) The District Magistrate, at the District level or Sub-Divisional officer at Sub- Divisional level
c) District Superintendent of Police
d) The Chief Medical Officer of the Health Department, at the District level or the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer at Sub-Division level
e) The Executive Engineer, PWD at the District level, or Assistant Engineer PWD at Sub-Divisional level
f) The District Education Officer dealing with literacy programmes.
g) District Social Welfare Officer
h) District Employment Officer
i) District Agricultural Officer
j) District Industrial Officer

The Board shall make at least one visit per quarter and for this purpose, presence of three members and the chairman shall constitute quorum.  

29.04 The Board of Visitors shall also comprise the following Non-Official Members:-
a) Three Members of the Legislative Assembly of the state of which one should be a woman.
b) A nominee of the State Human Rights Commission
c) Two social workers of the District/Sub-Division; one of them shall be a woman having an interest in the administration of prisons and welfare of prisoners.
29.05 The District Judge shall be the Chairman of the Board of visitors at District level and the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate shall be the Chairman at Sub-Division level. The Non-official visitors after their appointment must be sensitised and trained about their duties, roles and responsibilities.”
226 The duties of the Board have been provided as follows:
“29.22 All Visitors, official and non-official, at every visit shall:
(a) examine the cooked food;
(b) inspect the barracks, wards, work-sheds and other buildings of the prison generally;
(c) ascertain whether considerations of health, cleanliness and security are attended to, whether proper management and discipline is maintained in every respect and whether any prisoner is illegally detained, or is detained for undue length of time while awaiting trial;
(d) examine prison registers and records, except secret records and records pertaining to accounts;
(e) hear and attend to all representation and petitions made by or on behalf of the prisoners;
(f) direct, if deemed advisable, that any such representation or petition be forwarded to the Government;
(g) suggest new avenues for improvement in correctional work.”
The comments of the Board of Visitors are recorded in the visitors’ book of the prison and are forwarded to the Inspector General (IG) of Prisons. Any action on the comments is at the discretion of the IG Prisons. 
227 The Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act, 2023 also envisages inspection of prisons, including by a Board of Visitors headed by the district judge/additional district judge/sub-divisional judicial magistrate.311 It also includes the provision for “free legal aid to the prisoners in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987” and the relevant standard operating procedure."

In its order dated July 30, 2026, the Court had directed all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly. 

Supreme Court's 7-page long order dated July 30, 2026 reads: "1. Dr. S. Muralidhar, the learned Amicus has placed on record a detailed Status Report. 2. In the Status Report, the learned Amicus has provided the background of the entire litigation, more particularly the various directions issued by this Court in its decision titled “Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India and Others”, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 535. 3. The report talks about compliance of various directions issued by this Court in the Judgment, referred to above, including the clarificatory Order passed by this Court dated 7th November, 2024. 4. We have looked into the entire report. One copy of the Status Report has been provided to all other learned Counsel appearing in this litigation. 5. However, in the course of today's hearing, learned Amicus laid much stress on para 25 of his status report." Para 25 is titled 'Information Awaited Para 25 reads:The Amicus is awaiting further written responses from several States/UTs in respect of:-
"a. The method of collection and transmission of caste-data to NCRB;
b. Deletion of caste columns in all the registers and forms in prisons;
c. Outsourcing of cleaning work;
d. Status of compliance with the guidelines in the judgments in Arnesh Kumar and Amanatullah Khan;
e. Notifications constituting BoVs district wise;
f. Status of new Acts/Rules/Manuals that are proposed by several States/UTs;
g. Status of amendments to offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals.”

Dr. Muralidhar, the Amicus informed the Court that the State of Assam, the State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of Meghalaya, and the Union Territory of Chandigarh have evolved a methodology insofar as collection and transmission of caste data is concerned. According to him, the same methodology may be adopted by other States/UTs for the purpose of procuring the necessary information. According to him, as on date, none of the States/Union Territories have constituted Board of Visitors District-wise. According to him, it is very much important and necessary for each State/UT to constitute Board of Visitors in each of the Districts where are sub-jails. This has to be done under the Model Prison Manual, 2016, more particularly, Clause 29.01 read with 29.03 respectively including the State Prison Manual respectively. 

The Court's order reads: "10. We direct all the State Governments/Union Territories to ensure that Board of Visitors is constituted district – wise headed by the Principal District Judge of that particular District, within a period of four weeks from today. Board of Visitors shall be constituted accordingly without fail. Any laxity in this regard will be viewed strictly....We also direct all the States/Union Territories to provide us the status of amendments to the offending provisions in the Acts/Rules/Manuals as pointed out by the learned Amicus in his Status Report within a period of four weeks from today. 13. Registry shall forward one copy each of this Order to the Principal Secretary (Home) of all the States/Lieutenant Governors of Union Territories. The necessary Report as regards the aforesaid shall be forwarded by the respective States/Union Territories by 3-9-2026. Once all the necessary information is received, the Registry shall provide one copy each to the learned Amicus at the earliest."

In Sukanya Shantha vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court  delivered a 148-page long judgement dated October 3, 2024, wherein, referring to the discriminatory provisions in the prison manuals in the States, it concluded:...the impugned provisions are declared unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, and 23 of the Constitution. All States and Union Territories are directed to revise their Prison Manuals/Rules in accordance with this judgment within a period of three months; (ii) The Union government is directed to make necessary changes, as highlighted in this judgment, to address caste-based discrimination in the Model Prison Manual 2016 and the Model Prisons and Correctional Services Act 2023 within a period of three months; (iii) References to “habitual offenders” in the prison manuals/Model Prison Manual shall be in accordance with the definition provided in the habitual offender legislation enacted by the respective State legislatures, subject to any constitutional challenge against such legislation in the future. All other references or definitions of “habitual offenders” in the impugned prison manuals/rules are declared unconstitutional. In case, there is no habitual offender legislation in the State, the Union and the State governments are directed to make necessary changes in the manuals/rules in line with this judgment, within a period of three months; (iv) The “caste” column and any references to caste in undertrial and/or convicts’ prisoners’ registers inside the prisons shall be deleted; (v) The Police is directed to follow the guidelines issued in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and Amanatullah Khan v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (2024) to ensure that members of Denotified Tribes are not subjected to arbitrary arrest;(vi) This Court takes suo motu cognizance of the discrimination inside prisons on any ground such as caste, gender, disability, and shall list the case from now onwards as In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India." The Court will hearing In Re: Discrimination Inside Prisons in India case on November 3, 2026. 

Also read: Supreme Court all set to end persisting caste based discrimination in the prisons