Patna High Court delivered 17 judgments on February 3, 2026 in Md. Pappu @ Md. Saba Uddin vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Janam Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar, Ram Bilas Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Anubhuti Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar, Vikas Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Rajiv Kumar Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar, Manju Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Prawin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Anmol Kumar Sowarnkar @ Anmol Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Hari Shankar Kashyap vs. The State of Bihar, Arun Kumar Roy vs. The State of Bihar, Anupam Dvivedi vs. The State of Bihar, Vishalakshi vs. The State of Bihar, Mithun Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Atendra Thakur vs. The State of Bihar and Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited vs. M/s Tirhut Food Products.
Monday, February 9, 2026
Patna High Court delivered five judgements on Feb. 4
Patna High Court delivered five judgements on February 4, 2026 in Pramod Kumar Premi vs. The State of Bihar, Kanhaiya Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Apollo Trauma Centre, Represented through Dr. Rajat Kumar, The New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Krishna City Hospital Represented through Dr. Manoj Kumar Jayaswal, The Managing Director, Bihar State Food & Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Guptaji brothers Rice Mill Pvt.
Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on Feb. 5
Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on February 5, 2026 in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. vs. Mustari Khatoon, Shubham Kumar vs. The Bihar State Sunni Waqf Board, Guddu Miyan @ Haider Ali @ Guddu Khan vs. The State of Bihar, Dharmendra Kumar @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Shashikant Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Mukesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Bahadur Prasad, vs. State of Bihar, Lok Prakash Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Seraj Anwar vs. The State of Bihar, Garbhu Sah vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Sipahi Mahto @ Anil Kumar Mahto vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna and Sonu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar.
Patna High Court delivered seven judgements on Feb. 6
Patna High Court delivered seven judgements on February 6, 2026 in Vishal Gupta vs. Nandita, Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Somnath Patel vs. The State of Bihar, Rajeev Ranjan vs. The State of Bihar, Satpal Kumar Sahu vs. The State of Bihar, Arvind Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and Sugriw Ray vs. The State of Bihar.
Justice Anil Kumar Sinha sets aside the order by Director of Industries, Bihar, directs reimbursement of interest subsidy
In M/s Responce Renewable Energy Limited vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court delivered a-19-page long judgement dated February 9, wherein, he concluded:"51. The rejection of the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the 2014 Amendment Policy/resolution applies rrospectively is not tenable in the facts of the case, particularly when the petitioners’ units fulfilled the criteria of Board’s approval as well as commencement of the commercial production, dates of which are after coming into force of the 2014 Amendment Policy. 52. The respondents have erred in treating the dates of Board’s approval as the disqualifying factor when the condition of approval itself was that the approval would be considered from the date of power purchase agreement and the power purchase agreement is subsequent to the coming into force of the 2014 Amendment Policy. 53. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners fulfilled all the criteria as mentioned in the resolution, dated 11.06.2015 for applying the 2014 Amendment Policy for grant of interest subsidy. 54. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that the petitioners have fulfilled eligibility conditions including
valid project approval and are entitled for grant of 2 per cent interest subsidy on the amount of term loan from the date of commencement of the commercial production, i.e. 30.03.2017 and 28.02.2017, respectively for a period of seven years. 55. Accordingly, the impugned orders, dated 12.09.2022 and 26.09.2022, are set aside. The respondents are directed to calculate the amount of subsidy on interest as per the claim raised by petitioners in their respective applications within a period of one month from today and pay the said amount within a maximum period of four months from today."
Justice Sinha examined the question as to whether the petitioners companies were entitled for grant of 2 per cent interest subsidy under the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, and Industrial Incentive (Amendment) Policy, 2014.
The other four Respondents were: Principal Secretary, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Director of Industries, Department of Industry, Government of Bihar, Deputy Director (Technical), Department of Industries, Government of Bihar and General Manager, District Industry Centre, Patna. Thwe writ was heard along with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16335 of 2022 M/s. Glatt Solution (P) Limited. The petitioners were the companies engaged in the generation of solar power who had filed the writ applications for quashing of the orders, dated September 12, 2022 and September 26, 2022, respectively, by the respondent-Director of Industries, Bihar and for a direction to the respondents to reimburse the interest subsidy of 2 per cent on the term loan of rupees 49.92 crores and 16.50 crores, respectively.
The petitioners had prayed for a declaration that the companies are entitled for the interest subsidy from the date of commercial production, i.e. March 30, 2017 and February 28, 2017 respectively till seven years, as provided under the Industrial Incentive (Amendment) Policy, 2014. I. A. No. 1 of 2025 was filed in both the writ applications for amendment in the prayer for a direction to the respondent-State to disburse the amount of Rs. 5,57,84,700/- and Rs. 1,90,66,231/- respectively towards the interest subsidy for a period of 7 years from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2024 and March 1, 2017 to March 1, 2024 respectively, and also to pay interest at the rate of 2 per cent upon the entire calculated amount. With a view to promote industrial development within the State of Bihar, the Government of Bihar formulated and notified the Bihar Industrial Incentive Policy, 2011, promising various fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to attract industrial investment. The 2011 Policy was approved by the State Cabinet and notified in the Official Gazetteon June 9, 2011, issued by the Department of Industries and published on June 10, 2011.
Upon mid-term review of the 2011 Policy, the State Government decided to introduce certain amendments in the 2011 Policy. Accordingly, the Department of Industries issued the Industrial Incentive (Amendment) Policy, 2014 (2014 Amendment Policy) dated January 5, 2015, which was made effective from the date of its notification. The 2014 Amendment Policy was framed by introducing specific amendments to the 2011 Policy, and Clause 8 thereof inserted sub-paragraph (vi) in Paragraph 4 of the 2011 Policy, thereby providing for grant of interest subsidy at the rate of 2 per cent on the interest charged on term loans availed from the banks or financial institutions, payable for a maximum period of seven years from the date of commencement of commercial production. In furtherance of the promises made under the 2014 Amendment Policy, the Department of Industries, Government of Bihar, issued a notification dated June 11, 2015, laying down the procedure for grant of interest subsidy and specifying the date from which the amendment would take effect. The petitioner company had applied for approval of the proposal for establishment of 25 MW power generation solar unit, initially proposed to be set up at Madhubani, Buxar, or Chapra. However, due to certain practical difficulties, the proposed location of the unit was subsequently changed to Nawada, which was approved by the State Investment Promotion Board (SIPB) in its meeting held on March 26, 2012 from the date of power purchase agreement. Thereafter, the proposal of the petitioner company for establishment of the solar power generation unit at Nawada was approved by the State Cabinet on July 2, 2013 and the said approval was duly communicated to the petitioner company July 11, 2013. For the purpose of implementation of the project, the petitioner applied for a term loan, amounting to Rs. 49.92 crores, from the State Bank of India for its 10 MW power generation project at Nawada, and the Bank sanctioned the term loan dated February 7, 2017. The petitioner company commenced its commercial production with effect from March 30, 2017 and obtained the commissioning certificate dated July 14, 2017. After commencement of commercial production, the petitioner company applied for and was granted incentive under the 2011 Policy, and the Department of Industries issued sanction order, dated October 16, 2017, sanctioning capital subsidy of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner, vide application, dated September 14, 2018, applied before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nawada, seeking grant of interest subsidy at the rate of 2 per cent on the term loan availed by it, in terms of the 2014 Amendment Policy. Pursuant to the said application, the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nawada, conducted site inspections of the industrial unit of the petitioner on November 16, 2018 and November 22, 2018, and found the unit to be functional and operational and recommended for grant of interest subsidy to the Department of Industries dated November 28, 2018.
Despite the the recommendation, no decision was taken by the respondents on the petitioner’s claim for interest subsidy, compelling the petitioner to approach the High Court by filing CWJC No. 3578 of 2020, which was disposed of by the High Court, vide order, dated Juy 12, 2021, with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner communicated the High Court's order, dated July 12, 2021, to the respondents by way of representations, dated July 16, 2021 and March 14, 2022; however, when the respondents failed to comply with the directions of this Court within the stipulated reasonable time, the petitioner was constrained to file contempt petition, bearing MJC No. 1188 of 2022, and the High Court, vide order, dated August 31, 2022, directed the respondents to comply with the earlier order passed in CWJC No. 5932 of 2020. Thereafter, the respondents passed the impugned order, vide Memo dated September 12, 2022.
The petitioner company established 3 MW solar power generation unit at Nawada by availing a term loan of Rs. 16.50 crores from the State Bank of India. The proposal of the petitioner company for establishment of the solar power generation unit at Nawada was approved by the SIPB from the date of power purchase agreement, in its meeting, dated May 24, 2013. The petitioner entered into the Power Purchase Agreement with BSPHCL on September 14, 2016. The petitioner submitted the proposal for extension of the date of the commercial production, which was taken up by the SIPB and approved it in the meeting held on January 13, 2017, which was communicated to the petitioner, vide letter dated February 3, 2017. The petitioner, vide application, dated September 14, 2018, applied before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Nawada, seeking grant of interest subsidy at the rate of 2 per cent on the term loan availed by it, in terms of the 2014 Amendment Policy.
It was pointed out by the petitioners' counsel that in a Division Bench decision of the High Court, in the case of M/s Sunny Stars Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2020 (2) PLJR 327, dated July 29, 2019, wherein the Division Bench, while interpreting the 2011 Policy, held that it is exhaustive in itself and contains all requirement while no dependence on any other document and also that the denial of the benefit under the 2011 Policy on the ground of non-approval by the Chief Minister was held to be bad.
On the point of prospective and/or retrospective application of the 2014 Amendment Act, Justice Sinha quoted paragraphs 189 and 190 of the decision of the Supreme Court, in M. Rajendran and others vs. M/s KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. and Others, reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE 2036. It reads: “189. A legislation, be it a statutory Act or a statutory Rule or a statutory Notification, may physically consist of words printed on papers but conceptually, it would be a great deal more than ordinary prose. Of the various rules guiding how a legislation should be interpreted, the one established rule is that unless a contrary intention appears, a legislation is presumed not to be intended to have retrospective operation and the idea behind the rule is that a current law should govern current activities. 190. If legislation confers a benefit on some persons without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and such conferment appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant a retrospective effect.”
Supreme Court requests Patna High Court to register a writ petition under Article 32 in Supreme Court as a Writ Petition under Article 226
In Shankar Prasad Sharma & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe passed a 3-page long order dated February 3, 2026, wherein, it concluded: "2. We are not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. However, as the Writ Petition was pending before this Court for sometime, we deem it appropriate to transfer the Writ Petition to the High Court of Judicature at Patna for registering it as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The Registry is directed to transmit the entire records of the writ petition to the High Court expeditiously. 4. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The parties will be entitled to raise all contentions and objections before the High Court and it is for the High Court to consider the case on its own merits and dispose it of. 5. In view of the fact that the petition has been pending for sometime, we request the High Court to take up and dispose of the Writ Petition as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of five months from today. 6. In view of above, the Writ Petition is disposed of."
Besides the State Of Bihar, the other Respondents were: Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Special Secretary, Higher Education and Director, Higher Education. The Petitioners were: 1. Shankar Prasad Sharma, 2. Dr. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, 3. Dr. Arun Kumar Choudhary, 4. Dr. Alok Kumar Singh, 5. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, 6 Dr. Md. Aasaduzaman, 7. Dr. Meena Kumari, 8. Dr Sashi Ranjan, 9. Dr. Awadhesh Kr. Singh, 10. Dr Dinesh Prasad Sinha, 11. Dr. Balbodh Yadav, 12. Dr. Prahlad Kumar, 13. Dr. Naresh Chandra Vidyarthi, 14. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bariar, 15. Dr. Nand Kishore Singh, 16. Surendra Kumar, 17. Banke Bihari Singh, 18. Ashok Kumar Jha, 19. Kishori Sah, 20 Arun Kumar Ghosh, 21. Prabhuranjan Prasad Singh, 22. Krishna Sevak Pd. Singh, 23. S.M. Imran Ahmad, 24. Manoj Kumar Singh, 25. Ratish Kumar, 26. Ratnanshu Thakur., 27 Awadh Kishor Saha, 28 Arun Kumar, 29. Pratima Kumari, 30. Himanshu Shekhar Mishra, 31. Kaushal Kishore Singh, 32 Devendra Prasad Sharma, 33. Ira Singh, 34. Sunil Kumar Mandal, 35. Poonam Kumari, 36. Subodh Kumar Singh, 37. Devashish Laheri, 38. Poonam Kumari Gupta, 39. Minakshi Kumari, 40. Seema Gupta, 41. Balram Prasad Singh, 42. Sunil Kumar Bhakta, 43. Kanta Devi, 44. Dr. Ravindra Kumar, 45. Parvin Kumar, 46 Satyendra Rai, 47. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 48 Ram Kumar Singh, 49. Satendra Kumar, 50. Arbind Prasad Sinha, 51. Subodh Kumar Mondal, 52. Umesh Chandra Tiwari, 53. Satyasheel Kumar Mishra, 54. Tarapati Singh, 55. Mohsin Ahmad, 56. Shyamal Biswas, 57. Birendra Thakur, 58. Mohammad Altaful Haque, 59. Krishna Murari Acharya, 60. Madan Kumar Jha, 61 Dheera Choudhary, 62 Syed Mohammad Sayeed Akhter, 63. Shankar Prasad, 64 Ashok Kumar, 65 Siya Ram Singh, 66. Chandeswar Pd. Singh, 67. Ramasharya Prasad, 68. Dr. Narendra Tiwari, 69. Surendra Kumar Singh, 70. Dr. Raish Singh, 71. Mahesh Prasad, 72. Ashok Kumar, 73. Kundan Kumar Singh, 74. Dr. Sharad Kumar, 75. Vipendra Kumar Sinha, 76. Dr. Sheo Kumar Yadav, 77. Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, 78. Dr. Ram Sewak Singh, 79. Anil Kumar, 80. Md. Shabbir, 81 Baban Singh, 82. Paras Nath Kumar, 83. Haridwar Singh, 84. Arun Kumar Singh, 85. Ashok Kumar Singh, 86. Dr Vijay Kumar Sinha, 87. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh, 88. Dr. Raadhe Shayam Pd. Sinha, 89. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, 90. Abdus Salam, 91. Ashok Kumar Mahto, 92. Abhay Kumar Chowdhari, 93. Prafulla Kumar, 94. Ashok Kumar Singh, 95. Dharmshila Kumari, and 96. Bishwendra Pratap Singh.
The case was filed in the Supreme Court on March 6, 2024, It was verified n April 10, 2024 and registered on September 24, 2024.
Saturday, February 7, 2026
Executivisation of Judiciary
"In republics, it is plain that as many formalities at least are necessary as in monarchies. In both governments they increase in proportion to the value which is set on the honor, fortune, liberty, and life of the subject. In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing."
-Montesquieu, Chapter 17 on Constitutional Government, The Spirit of Laws (1748)
Section 20 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) reads:"Directorate of Prosecution. (1) The State Government may establish,—(a) a Directorate of Prosecution in the State consisting of a Director of Prosecution and as many Deputy Directors of Prosecution as it thinks fit; and (b) a District Directorate of Prosecution in every district consisting of as many Deputy Directors and Assistant Directors of Prosecution, as it thinks fit. (2) A person shall be eligible to be appointed,—(a) as a Director of Prosecution or a Deputy Director of Prosecution, if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than fifteen years or is or has been a Sessions Judge;(b) as an Assistant Director of Prosecution, if he has been in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years or has been a Magistrate of the first class. (3) The Directorate of Prosecution shall be headed by the Director of Prosecution, who shall function under the administrative control of the Home Department in the State.(4) Every Deputy Director of Prosecution or Assistant Director of Prosecution shall be subordinate to the Director of Prosecution; and every Assistant Director of Prosecution shall be subordinate to the Deputy Director of Prosecution. (5) Every Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) or sub-section (8) of section 18 to conduct cases in the High Court shall be subordinate to the Director of Prosecution. (6) Every Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the State Government under sub-section (3) or sub-section (8) of section 18 to conduct cases in District Courts and every Assistant Public Prosecutor appointed under sub-section (1) of section 19 shall be subordinate to the Deputy Director of Prosecution or the Assistant Director of Prosecution.(7) The powers and functions of the Director of Prosecution shall be to monitor cases in which offences are punishable for ten years or more, or with life imprisonment, or with death; to expedite the proceedings and to give opinion on filing of appeals.(8) The powers and functions of the Deputy Director of Prosecution shall be to examine and scrutinise police report and monitor the cases in which offences are punishable for seven years or more, but less than ten years, for ensuring their expeditious disposal.(9) The functions of the Assistant Director of Prosecution shall be to monitor cases in which offences are punishable for less than seven years.(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (7), (8) and (9), the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of Prosecution shall have the power to deal with and be responsible for all proceedings under this Sanhita.(11) The other powers and functions of the Director of Prosecution, Deputy Directors of Prosecution and Assistant Directors of Prosecution and the areas for which each of the Deputy Directors of Prosecution or Assistant Directors of Prosecution have been appointed shall be such as the State Government may, by notification, specify.(12) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the Advocate General for the State while performing the functions of a Public Prosecutor."
Section 20(2)(a) and Section 20(2)(b) of the BNSS permit Sessions Judges, Magistrates and retired judicial officers to be appointed as Directors, Deputy Directors, and Assistant Directors of Prosecution in State-run prosecution departments.
This arrangement allows judges to function within an executive-controlled prosecutorial hierarchy, which, according to him, strikes at the core of judicial independence and violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Such a provision existed in the pre-independence Code of Criminal Procedure of 1898 though it was done away with in the CrPC of 1973, the plea points out.
The CrPC of 1973 represented a crucial moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence as it institutionalised the understanding that investigation, prosecution, and adjudication must operate as distinct yet complementary functions, each insulated from the other’s coercive influence.
Under Section 20 of the BNSS, every State may establish a Directorate of Prosecution headed by a Director of Prosecution. The law places this Directorate under the administrative control of the State Home Department. All public prosecutors and assistant public prosecutors are made subordinate to this Directorate.
The provisions make serving or retired judicial officers eligible to occupy senior positions within the specified structure.