Justice Sandeep Kumar quashes closure report of police, sets aside order by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, directs re-investigation of death of petitioner's deceased mother

In Tezaswini Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar Through Its Director General Of Police & Ors. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 40-page long judgement dated April 8, 2026, wherein, he  concluded: "37.....this Court is of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased mother of the petitioner deserves to be re-investigated in order to bring to the forefront the actual and the whole truth. Accordingly, the closure report No.179 of 2021 dated 31.10.2021 submitted by the police in Birpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 is hereby quashed. 38. In such circumstances, the investigation of Birpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 is directed to be conducted de novo by Sri Vikas Vaibhav, Inspector General of Police, Bihar. Sri Vikas Vaibhav shall commence the fresh investigation of Birpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 forthwith and he shall be free to constitute his own team. The police officers of Begusarai district shall extend all cooperation in the expeditious investigation and supervision of this case. The investigation shall be conducted in a holistic and comprehensive manner in accordance with law. 39. Since this Court has directed for re-investigation of the case, the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, is hereby quashed and set aside....42. Let a copy of this judgment be communicated through FAX or e-mail to the Director General of Police, Bihar as well as the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai forthwith for its compliance." In effcect, the judgement quashes closure report of police, sets aside order by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai, directed re-investigation of death of petitioner's deceased mother. 

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking re-investigation/de novo investigation in the death of her mother. It was the case of the petitioner that the investigation conducted by the local police in relation to the death of her mother is incomplete and deliberately directed away from the real line of investigation, and therefore, warrants investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigating Team (SIT). 

Th writ petition prayed for Issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) to transfer the said FIR bearing No.49 of 2021 dated April 5, 2021, registered under Section 302, IPC lodged with Birpur Police Station, Begusarai to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or alternatively direct for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate in the
present matter.  It also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) directing the respondent authorities to conduct a de novo investigation in
the said FIR bearing No.49 of 2021 dated April 5, 2021, registered under Section 302, IPC lodged with Birpur Police Station, Begusarai. The petitioner preferred to move an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. No. 01 of 2025 seeking to amend the prayer portion of the main writ petition and add an additional prayer, which was allowed vide order dated June 27, 2025. It sought direction for setting aside the order dated April 9, 2025 in complaint case number 211114 of 2022 whereby and whereunder the Court of Om Prakash, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai while treating the protest petition filed by the petitioner in Birpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 as a complaint case, after making inquiry under Section 200 and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. has been pleased to dismiss the same under Section 203 of the CrPC.”

The petitioner was the daughter of Rinku Kumari, who was found dead on April 4, 2021 at Kasturba Gandhi Balika Avasiya Vidyalaya, Muzaffara, Begusarai. According to the prosecution, the deceased left her house on April 4, 2021 in the morning, for the school, where she was working as a warden, saying that she will come back home by evening. However, at around 2:00 P.M., the petitioner received a phone call and when the petitioner reached there along with her family members, she saw the dead body of her mother, lying on the floor. Later she was shown pictures of her deceased mother by the police officials and local people who had gathered there, in which her mother was seen to be in sitting position, with a noose around the neck and the rope looped from a ceiling fan and her body was covered with dirt and dust. Thereafter, the petitioner along with her family members performed the last rites of her mother and on the very next date i.e. on April 5, 2021 the petitioner approached Birpur Police Station, Begusarai and the present F.I.R. bearing Birpur P.S. Case No.49 of 2021 dated April 5, 2021 came to be registered. It was the case of the petitioner that when she approached the Birpur Police Station on April 5, 2021 to register an FIR naming Kaushal Kumar and Rohit Kumar as accused, the S.H.O. of Birpur Police Station, refused to lodge an FIR against the suspected accused persons stating that the petitioner was not present at the time of the incident and insisted that the F.I.R. will get registered only if the petitioner gave an application in accordance with what the S.H.O. directs and only thereafter, the F.I.R. came to be lodged based on the new complaint which was drafted as per the direction of the S.H.O. and prepared by the scribe (Katib) namely, Prabhakar Kumar and was later signed by the petitioner.

It was also the case of the petitioner that about three years ago from the date of occurrence, Kaushal Kumar and Rohit Kumar, who were the neighbours of the family of the petitioner, had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from the mother of the petitioner for transferring a piece of land to her, however, neither did they transfer the land nor did they return the money. Subsequently, a panchayati was held, in which both the persons had assured the deceased that they will return the money on April 4, 2021 but on the same date i.e., on April 4, 2021 the mother of the petitioner was found dead under mysterious circumstance, which according to the petitioner, warrants a serious investigation of the two suspected accused persons. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that from the very beginning, the local police officials had been trying to protect the suspected accused persons, since they have considerable influence in the local community which was illustrated by the fact that despite repeated requests by the petitioner, who was the informant of the case, the Police has failed to name the suspected accused persons in the FIR. It was submitted that the petitioner was assured that after conducting preliminary investigation, name of the persons provided by the petitioner shall be arrayed as accused persons, however, the same was not done and the authorities have failed to conduct a proper investigation. The case was investigated only in a manner to support the narrative of suicide, ignoring the apprehension that the death of the mother of the petitioner was not a case of suicide but a case of murder. The petitioner had visited the competent authorities several times for taking proper action but she remained unheard. 

Being dissatisfied, the petitioner sent an e-mail dated April 10, 2021 describing the entire fact of the matter was sent to the Director General of Police and other high ranking functionaries of the State requesting them for their intervention in the matter. The petitioner also wrote a letter dated April 16, 2021 to the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai stating all her grievances against the investigating authority. Later, on June 7, 2021 the petitioner had also moved a protest petition against the closure report filed by the Police in the Court of ACJM-VI, Begusarai. The lackadaisical attitude of the local police officials was illustrated by the fact that they have not even bothered to record the statements of Kaushal Kumar and rather made Rohit Kumar as a prosecution witness. The investigative authorities failed to enquire into the fact that as per the statement of the Adeshpal i.e. the peon of the school, namely, Ajit Kumar Bablu, the deceased had informed him regarding her visit to school and had asked him to reach the school by 12:00 noon. The inconsistencies in the statement of the peon was pointed out, which was never investigated by the police thoroughly. The peon had stated that the deceased had informed him before reaching the school premises, however, contradicting his statement, on the other hand, he had stated that the deceased usually used to inform him about her arrival at the school, however, she did not inform him on the date of occurrence. The peon in his statement had stated that he had reached the school at 12:30 P.M. but during investigation, it had come that the CCTV camera installed at the school was suspiciously switched on at 01:45 P.M. and at 01:53 P.M. the peon was seen running towards the main gate calling people and hurling. However, there is no finding regarding the whereabouts of peon in between 12:30 P.M. and 01:53 P.M. and more importantly, the investigating officer failed to investigate the case on the point as to why the CCTV camera installed at the school remained non-functional/ switched off for almost five and half hours. Although the investigation regarding the Call Detail Records and Customer Acquisition Form of the deceased and Kaushal Kumar was made, but the investigation failed to gather details regarding call records either of the deceased or Kaushal Kumar and though the Investigating Officer analyzed the tower location of the suspected accused, but the same was only after 08:59 A.M. which was way beyond the time when the CCTV camera got switched off, and therefore, the investigation of the Call Detail Record holds no meaningful relevance.

The counsel of the petitioner submitted that from the inquest report prepared on the place of occurrence, it was evident that the body of the deceased was found in a sitting position, which further aggravates the suspicion of a staged hanging and therefore, pointed towards planned homicide, considering the fact that even the C.C.T.V. cameras installed in the school premises were switched off just after the entry of the deceased in the school.  During investigation it emeregd that these suspected two persons had taken money from the deceased and there was regular tension amongst the family of the deceased and these persons. The police failed to conduct a fair, proper and honest investigation in the present case and the petitioner seeks justice to unravel the mystery of her mother's death, dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the investigating officer as the investigation has reached a dead end without identification of the criminals and the investigating authorities have investigated the case with a coloured perspective from the very inception. 

Justice Kumar referred to the position of law on the powers of the Constitutional Court to direct for re-investigation / de-novo investigation. He relied on Supreme Court's decision in Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported as (2010) 2 SCC 200 while exercising epistolary jurisdiction on the letter written by the brother of the victim in a fake encounter has held that the Constitutional Court is not barred from directing further/de novo investigation in an appropriate case and has held as follows:-“60. Therefore, in view of our discussions made hereinabove, it is difficult to accept the contentions of Mr Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Gujarat that after the charge-sheet is submitted in the court in the criminal proceeding it was not open for this Court or even for the High Court to direct investigation of the case to be handed over to CBI or to any independent agency. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that in an appropriate case when the court feels that the investigation by the police authorities is not in the proper direction and in order to do complete justice in the case and as the high police officials are involved in the said crime, it was always open to the court to hand over the investigation to the independent agency like CBI. It cannot be said that after the charge-sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI. 61. Keeping this discussion in mind, that is to say, in an appropriate case, the court is empowered to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when the charge-sheet has been submitted, we now deal with the facts of this case whether such investigation should be transferred to the CBI Authorities or any other independent agency in spite of the fact that the charge- sheet has been submitted in court. On this ground, we have carefully examined the eight action taken reports submitted by the State police authorities before us and also the various materials produced and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties. (emphasis supplied).

Justice Kumar referred to Supreme Court's decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Committee For Protection Of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. reported as (2010) 3 SCC 571, wherein it has been held: “Conclusions 68. Thus, having examined the rival contentions in the context of the constitutional scheme, we conclude as follows: (i) The fundamental rights, enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any constitutional or statutory provision. Any law that abrogates or abridges such rights would be violative of the basic structure doctrine. The actual effect and impact of the law on the rights guaranteed under Part III has to be taken into account in determining whether or not it destroys the basic structure. (ii) Article 21 of the Constitution in its broad perspective seeks to protect the persons of their lives and personal liberties except according to the procedure established by law. The said article in its broad application not only takes within its fold enforcement of the rights of an accused but also the rights of the victim. The State has a duty to enforce the human rights of a citizen providing for fair and impartial investigation against any person accused of commission of a cognizable offence, which may include its own officers. In certain situations even a witness to the crime may seek for and shall be granted protection by the State.
xxx
(vii) When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by the State, CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which was otherwise within the jurisdiction of the State police, the Court can also exercise its constitutional power of judicial review and direct CBI to take up the investigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted by Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutory provision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restriction imposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannot be read as restriction on the powers of the constitutional courts. Therefore, exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court, in our opinion, would not amount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. 
69. In the final analysis, our answer to the question referred is that a direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly.” (emphasis supplied)

Justice Kumar drew on Supreme Court's judgements in Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2014) 8 SCC 768, Mithilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported as (2015) 9 SCC 795, Pooja Pal vs. Union of India & Ors. reported as (2016) 3 SCC 135, Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (1995) 5 SCC 518, Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, Gudalure M.J. Cherian [Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India, (1992) 1 SCC 397], Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. [Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Assn. vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 1 SCC 616, Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported as (2020) 16 SCC 777, Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482, Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, Ganeshbhai Jakshibhai Bharwad vs. State of Gujarat, 2009 SCC OnLine Guj 12130], Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana [Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 160,

Justice Kumar observed that "...from the perusal of the case records, it is clear that the suspected accused persons were not named in the F.I.R. on the alleged insistence of the S.H.O. of Birpur Police Station. More
importantly, from the perusal of the case diary, it appears that the statement of one of the aforesaid suspected accused was not recorded by the investigating officer. 32. In a case of unnatural death, which appears to be suicide, it is imperative for the investigating officer to conclusively establish suicide. In the present case, there is no suicide note or verifiable psychological suicidal history supported by the independent witnesses to bring home the factum of suicide. The sole statement of the alleged suspected accused Rohit Kumar could not be the sole ground to point towards a pre-existing suicidal tendency of the deceased mother of the petitioner since the aforesaid Rohit Kumar is not only one of the suspected accused but his brother is also a suspected accused, who is alleged to have had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from
the deceased mother of the petitioner as per the version of the petitioner. Therefore, a bald statement before the police that one fine day the aforesaid Rohit Kumar had seen the deceased mother trying to pour kerosene on herself does not establish conclusively the suicidal tendency. 33. Further, from the perusal of the records of the case, it appears that the investigation since its inception has been on the presumption that the deceased, that is, the mother of the petitioner, had committed suicide. The primary purpose of the investigation is fact finding and finding the truth, therefore, it is incumbent upon the investigating officer to conduct a holistic investigation to uncover the actual truth. Proceeding with a myopic view would not only fail to bring the truth to the forefront but also be a gross miscarriage of justice."

Justice Kumar added:"....the inquest report prepared by the police at the place of occurrence, the postmortem of the deceased conducted at Sadar Hospital, Begusarai, as well as the special opinion sought by this Court from the Head of the Department, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, P.M.C.H., Patna would, though point towards the conclusion that the mother of the petitioner had committed suicide inside the school premises where she was working as warden but, the postmortem report or the medico-legal opinion cannot be sole ground to establish suicide conclusively. A postmortem report or a medico-legal opinion is an important corroborative evidence but, it could not qualify as a substantive evidence to conclusively establish suicide. Where the investigation seeks to proceeds on a theory of suicide, such theory, must be supported by reliable material and must, therefore, be properly investigated. A premature or unsupported labeling of an unnatural death as suicide is inconsistent with the constitutional requirement of a fair and proper investigation. 35. It is trite law that medico-legal opinions have a corroborative evidentiary value but cannot be the sole ground based on which an inescapable conclusion is drawn, particularly, when there are admitted suspicious elements surrounding the death of the mother of the petitioner. The fact that the CCTV cameras installed inside the school premises were functioning perfectly well up until 7:18 hours when it was switched off, and the aforesaid cameras were switched on at 13:24 hours. 36. The contention of the petitioner is that the allegedly suspected accused Kaushal Kumar had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from the mother of the petitioner in lieu of transferring a piece of land. However, from the perusal of the case records, it appears that though the investigating officer had analyzed the CDR and CAF, yet they failed to record the statement of aforesaid Kaushal Kumar. Therefore, it appears that the investigation did not holistically investigate the incident and proceeded with a preconceived presumption of suicide. No meaningful attempts also appears to have been made to investigate the abetment of suicide or whether the scene of crime was staged."
 

 

Justice Ritesh Kumar sets aside orders by Labour Resources Department, restores petitioner's pension to 100%, directs refund of 20% deducted pension

In Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors. (2026), Justice Ritesh Kumar delivered a 37-page long judgment dated April 9, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"28. The respondent authorities are directed tor restore the pension of the petitioner to 100% and to refund/return the amount to the tune of 20%, which has been deducted from the pension of the petitioner till date, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The respondent authorities are further directed to make payment of the entire 100% of the pension/post-retiral dues which have not been paid to the petitioner on account of pendency of the departmental proceeding, within the period aforementioned. If the entire exercise will not be completed within a period of three months, then the petitioner would be entitled for interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the writ petition till the date of its actual payment. 29. The writ petition is allowed with the direction above mentioned."  

The other seven respondents were:  Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Resources, Government of Bihar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Labour Resources, Officer On Special Duty, Department of Labour Resources,  Director of Employment, Directorate of Empolyment and Training Department of Labour Resources, Accountant General (A and E) Bihar, Director of Provident Fund, Finance Department, and District Treasury Officer, Gaya, Bihar. 

The writ petition was filed with prayer calling upon the respondents to show cause why rule nisi in the nature of writ and/or in the nature of writ of certiorari be not issued upon the respondents and the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Department of Labour Resources, Government of Bihar be quashed and or cancelled; further for issuance of writ/order/directions upon the respondent(s) to quash the entire disciplinary proceedings under Memo No.2887 & 2888, both dated 31.10.2017 issued by the respondents upon the petitioner; further issue a writ of or in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents to forthwith release the post-retirement benefits, withheld so far, with interest admissible to the petitioner.

The writ petition was filed because the petitioner having been allocated the Bihar Employment Service, gave his joining as a District Employment Officer on 02.04.1992. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Employment on 02.04.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Employment and thereafter superannuated from service on 31.10.2017. On 16.10.2017, the petitioner informed the Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Resources,  Government of Bihar, Patna about fake appointments on Class-III and Class-IV posts in the Department of Employment and the need to enquire into the matter. Pursuant to the Letter dated 16.10.2017, an enquiry was conducted and without any basis the department initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner vide Resolution No. 2887 and 2888, both dated 31.10.2017, but the same was not served upon the petitioner, since on the same day he has superannuated. The said resolutions were not served upon the petitioner, since the same were said to have been sent to the previous place of posting of the petitioner i.e. Gaya Division, Gaya, therefore, the same was returned unserved. However, vide Memo Nos. 3112 and 3114 dated 16.11.2017 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna a decision was taken to convert the departmental proceeding, initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No. 2888 dated 31.10.2017, in the proceeding under Rule, 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950. The petitioner was served with all the letters mentioned hereinabove i.e. Resolution Nos. 2887 and 2888 dated 31.10.2017 and Resolution Nos. 3112 and 3114 dated 16.11.2017, through registered post on 22.11.2017. Along with the letters, the charge of  Memo was also annexed, from where the petitioner came to know about the initiation of departmental proceeding against him. Subsequently vide Letter No. 3468 dated 04.12.2017 issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna the petitioner was informed that the entire gratuity has been kept withheld due to the pending enquiry against him and he was also informed that his pension has been reduced by 10%. 

The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that being aggrieved with the decision of the State Government the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 720 of 2018 before the Hig Court, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 15.01.2018, while directing the respondent authorities to file counter affidavit, stayed further proceeding in the matter. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was finally heard by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court and vide order dated 05.09.2018, the same was partly allowed by quashing the departmental proceeding in relation to Letter Nos. 2887 and 2890 dated 31.10.2017 and further directed that the proceeding related to Letter Nos. 2887 and 2888 dated 31.10.2017 will continue, subject to the observations made in  the order dated 05.09.2018. The petitioner also filed C.W.J.C. No. 16529 of 2017 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 19.04.2019 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court with a direction to the respondent to release the withheld retiral dues and 90% gratuity amount in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that in view of the observations made by the Single Judge vide his order dated 05.09.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 720 of 2018, the Joint Labour Commissioner, Bihar vide Memo No. 2010 dated 08.05.2019 directed the Enquiry Officer to produce the letters/documents mentioned therein, in the enquiry, so that decision can be taken that whether the departmental proceeding under Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules has been initiated in violation of the provision contained therein or not, but even then no such documents were provided to the petitioner or produced before the authorities concerned. The petitioner filed an appeal before this Court against the order dated 05.09.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 720 of 2018. The appeal filed by the petitioner was numbered as L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018. 

The petitioner's counsel also submitted that vide Letter dated 23.08.2021 the petitioner again requested the Conducting Officer to provide evidences with regard to proof of service of the charge-sheet upon the petitioner, before his date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2017, but no response was received by the petitioner, then he was constrained to again write a Letter dated 17.09.2021 to the Conducting Officer, wherein the petitioner again asked for the proof/evidence about the claim of serving notice/charge-sheet upon him before the date of retirement. Along with in the letter dated 17.09.2021, the petitioner also requested the Conducting Officer to call certain witnesses for their examination and cross-examination, to prove/disprove the charges against the petitioner, but no such document was ever provided to the petitioner.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Enquiry/Conducting Officer vide his Letter No. 354 dated 04.02.2022 proceeded to submit his enquiry report before the disciplinary authority, wherein he came to the conclusion that since the delinquent has not appeared and denied the charges levelled against him, therefore, the Letter No. 1262 dated 27.08.2007 of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, which is the evidence of the charge-sheet, on the basis of the said letter the charges are found to be proved. Subsequently, vide Letter No. 691 dated 24.03.2022 issued under the signature of the Officer on Special duty, Labour Resource Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to submits his reply within fifteen days, that why punishment be not imposed against the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.04.2022, wherein he took a defense that initiation of the departmental proceeding itself was in complete violation of the provisions contained in Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950 and other statutory Rules, as well as in violation of the principles of natural justice, in violation of Rule, 17 (3) and 17 (6) (iv) of the Bihar CCA Rule of 2005. The enquiry report was submitted without appreciation of any evidence. 

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that a second supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the respondent-State on 13.08.2022 in LPA No. 1553 of 2018, filed by the petitioner, wherein the extract of the dispatch register was produced, which goes to show that the resolution letter (along with charge Memo Nos. 2887 and 2888) dated 31.10.2017 were dispatched for the first time through registered on 02.11.2017 i.e. after the retirement of the petitioner. The  appeal preferred by the petitioner i.e. L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018 was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2022 with a direction to the State-respondent to issue show cause notice to the petitioner in furnishing necessary materials with the Memo dated 31.10.2017 has been served upon the petitioner and on receipt of such notice and material, the petitioner was directed to file his explanation along with material information, if any and thereafter the disciplinary authority was directed to analyze the material fact and explanation to be submitted by the petitioner and take a decision within a period three months from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was directed to co-operate in deciding the issue with the disciplinary authority. It was further directed that till the decision is taken by the disciplinary authority, further action pursuant to the Memo dated 31.10.2017 shall be kept in abeyance, until decision is taken by the disciplinary authority.

Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018, the petitioner preferred SLP (Civil) No. 20131 of 2022. In the meantime the respondent-State, in compliance of order dated 31.08.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018, issued fresh show cause  notice to the petitioner, without providing any acknowledgment or any certificate mandated under Section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act and in violation of the directions given by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018. In compliance thereof the petitioner filed his reply on 25.11.2022 to the fresh show cause notice dated 10.11.2022, wherein he explained that the proceeding initiated vide Memo Nos. 2887 and 2888 dated 31.10.2017 i.e. on the date of his retirement, are illegal, invalid and ultra virus, as the respondent authorities have failed to prove the service of the said notice/charge Memo upon the petitioner, during his service period and nor did they submit acknowledgment or certificate required under Section 65 (b) of the Indian Evidence Act, to make any electronic document admissible as evidence. The SLP preferred by the petitioner was disposed of on 06.12.2022 by the Supreme Court of India, in view of the fresh show cause notice issued by the State-respondent, with a direction to the petitioner to participate in the proceeding before the disciplinary authority and it was observed that it goes without saying that all the defences which may be available to the petitioner are kept open to be considered by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law and on its own merits.

The senior counsel of the petitioner relied on Supreme Court's decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi vs. The Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 1 and Mohd. Idrish Ansari vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in AIR (1995) SC 1853.  

Justice Kumar observed:"...this Court finds that the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry, even though the charges levelled against the petitioner, were denied by him. Therefore, the enquiry itself stood vitiated. This fact finds support from a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case bearing civil Appeal no. 4130 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2900 of (Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. & Ors).....". 

The Supreme Court held as follows:- “17. From the decisions of this Court in Sur Enamel (supra) and Kharak Singh (supra), followed in Chamoli District Cooperative (supra), which deals with similar service rules as are applicable here, it is now settled that unless the charged employee accepts his guilt in clear terms, an enquiry on the charges drawn against him would have to be held. In the enquiry, the employer/department would have to take steps first to lead evidence against the workmen / delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross examine those witnesses. Only thereafter, the workmen / delinquent shall be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and/or submit an explanation about the evidence led against him. Even in a case based solely on documentary evidence, unless the relied upon documents are admitted by the charged employee, a witness would have to be examined to prove those documents and when so examined, the witness would have to be tendered for cross-examination. 18. In the instant case, we find that the department had not produced any witness in the enquiry even though the charges levelled upon the appellant were denied by him. Therefore, in our view, the enquiry stood vitiated. Once the enquiry stood vitiated, the consequential order of punishment/ recovery cannot be sustained. We therefore allow this appeal. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition of the appellant stands allowed to the extent indicated below. The order of dismissal and consequential recovery is set aside. The Federation is, however, at liberty to hold a de novo enquiry, if it so desires, within a period of six months from the date of this order. If the Federation does not hold de novo enquiry as permitted above, the appellant shall be entitled to reinstatement with benefit of continuity in service including arrears of salary after adjusting suspension allowance, if any, paid already. In case the Federation chooses to hold an enquiry, it shall reinstate the appellant and place him under suspension till completion of the enquiry and during this period pay suspension allowance as may be payable in accordance with law. In case de novo enquiry is held, other service benefits including arrears of salary as well as benefits of continuity in service shall depend on the outcome of the enquiry.”

The High Court's judgement records that "No evidence has been brought on record by the respondent authorities to suggest that the disciplinary authority had ever directed for service of notice upon the petitioner through electronic mode and even if the same was sent to the petitioner, the same was sent by a sub-ordinate employee, by using his private computer, which is not permissible in law. Further, there is no valid proof of service of the said notice through electronic mode, upon the petitioner, since the required certificate in terms of section 65(b) (4) of the Evidence Act, by a Competent Officer was not brought on record by the respondent authorities and the office clerk, whose letter was brought on record, was neither authorized to grant certificate nor was the In-charge of the computer and he used his personal computer for the same, without any valid authorization. Further, even during course of the departmental enquiry there are discrepancies with regard to the email I.D, on which the said memo of charge dated 31.10.2017 is said to have been sent/dispatched, since different email IDs were mentioned, upon which the which the same was said to have been sent. Even the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were for the period, more than four years prior to his retirement and no proceeding in terms of the Rule 43 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rule, 1950 could have been initiated/conducted against the petitioner, after his retirement on 31.10.2017." 

Justice Kumar observed:"The Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority did not bothered to take into account the directions given by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. 720 of 2018, Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. 1553 of 2018 and even the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil No. 20131 of 2022), which was preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 31.08.2022 passed in L.P.A. No. 1553 of 2018. 26. Accordingly from the considerations made above, this Court has got no option, but to set aside the Letter no. 1216 dated 15.05.2023 issued by the Officer on Special duty, Department of Labour Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna, resolution contained in memo no. 3480 dated 16.11.2023, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary to the Government, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, letter no. 425 dated 02.02.2024 issued under the signature of the officer on special duty, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and memo no. 848 dated 07.03.2024 issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna." 

Justice Kumar relied on the High Court's judgment dated February 25, 2026 passed in Nutan Kumar Prabahat vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.), wherein, the Court held as follows:-“25. The High Court under Article 226/227 is entitled to interfere when the finding of fact is based on no evidence and if in every case where no valid evidence is laid at the enquiry proceeding, there is a remand made, it would be offering a premium to the negligence of the management/disciplinary authority and condoning the levity with which the departmental enquiry was conducted. It is the disciplinary authority, who appoints the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer and it is expected that the Presenting Officer would be well versed in the procedures and also be informed in the manner in which evidence has to be laid before the Enquiry Officer, to prove the misconduct, alleged against a delinquent employee. In a disciplinary enquiry proceeding, it is also the trite principle that the standard of proof is preponderance of probability as distinguished from proof beyond reasonable doubt, as would be required in a criminal prosecution. However, if there is no evidence laid at the enquiry, there is no question of any preponderance of probability being drawn to find the allegations proved nor can the delinquent be penalised on the basis of peremptory finding without any valid evidence. The disciplinary authority had an opportunity in a properly constituted enquiry proceeding and if in such a proceeding no evidence was laid,the punishment of dismissal has to be found to be imposed on no valid evidence.”

5 year old mental health act case tagged with "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report", a Suo Motu PIL

In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report (2026), a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation was initiated by the Patna High Court's Division Bench pursuant to the report dated February 17, 2026 submitted by the Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA). BALSA's inspection report with respect to the shortcomings of mental health facilities in the State of Bihar as well as in Bihar State Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS), Koelwar, Bhojpur is an independent report. The case was listed for hearing on April 20, 2026 by the High Court's Division of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar by its 54-page long order dated March 16, 2026.

The PIL was filed and registered on February 17, 2026 and tagged with a 5-year-old case  filed by Vishal Kumar Singh, Akash Keshav, Deepak Kumar Singh and Shashwat with Advocate Akanksha Malviya as petitioner in person. 

By its order dated February 25, 2019, the High Court had issued notice to the (i) Principal Secretary, Health Department; (ii) Secretary, State Mental Health Authority, Bihar; (iii) Director, Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS); (iv) DG of Police, Bihar; (v) I.G. of Prisons; and (vi) Union of India and asked the concerned authorities to submit their responses on the following aspects:-
“i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the
2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming
for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital;
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA.

The notice was issued pursuant to relevant sections of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, NALSA (Legal Service to persons with Mental Illness and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458 and in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412 of 2016) vide order dated February 25, 2019. 

By its earlier 26-page long order dated February 18, 2026, the Division Bench had 9. The concerned authorities are to submit their responses on the following aspect: i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the 2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital; 
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA. 

The High Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458, wherein it held:- “31. Mental health is an integral component of the right to life Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has, in a consistent line of precedents, affirmed that the right to life does not mean mere animal existence, but a life of dignity, autonomy, and well-being. Mental health is central to this vision. In Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0043/2014 : 2014:INSC:46: (2014) 3 SCC 1 and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0947/2018 2018:INSC:790 : (2018) 10 SCC 1, this Court recognised mental integrity, psychological autonomy, and freedom from degrading treatment as essential facets of human dignity Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, a rights- based legislation, reinforces this constitutional mandate by recognising every person's right to access mental healthcare and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment in mental health settings. Section 18 of the MH Act guarantees mental health services to all, and Section 115 of the MH Act explicitly decriminalises attempted suicide, acknowledging the need for care and support rather than punishment. These provisions read with judicial precedents reflect a broader constitutional vision that mandates a responsive legal framework to prevent self-harm and promote well-being, particularly among vulnerable populations such as students and youth.”

In Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412/2016), the Supreme Court, by order dated February 25, 2019, held:- “7. For ensuring availability of rehabilitation halfway homes in the districts: (i) State Governments must either expand their existing homes or construct new homes at their own cost and provide facilities as per the ‘Rehabilitation Homes’ Guidelines approved by the Supreme Court. (ii) Another way out is for the States/UTs to encourage NGOs in their States to set up rehabilitation homes or even expand the existing homes run by NGOs. The State Government may provide financial assistance to the NGOs towards this objective or seek the assistance of the Central Government for the same. The Central Government already has a scheme to fund such NGOs on the recommendation of State Government (Project Halfway Homes). The State Governments may give wide publicity to this Central scheme. 8. In certain States, some NGOs/community-based organizations have been providing remarkable services in the area of rehabilitation of mentally ill persons. The State Governments may involve them to supplement their own efforts. 9. Assistance is required to be elicited from police departments of various States, in order to register FIRs and make efforts to trace the families of de-institutionalized persons, and to include the details of such persons in national missing persons databases.

Prior to this, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar had passed 2-page long order dated January 6, 2022 in Akanksha Malviya vs. The Union of India & Ors., a case of 2021 wherein, notice was issued considering pryer for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) commanding the Respondents to establish a legitimate and functional State Mental Health Authority in adherence with Section 45 and Section 55 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The same bench passed a 4-page long order dated February 10, 2022, wherein it noted that Mental Health Care Act, 2017 was notified on April 7, 2017. The object and purpose of the Act was to provide for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness. Also to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters. Chapter-VIII specifically deals with the establishment and composition of the State Authority, to be termed as the “State Mental Health Authority”. The composition of such authority in terms of Section-46 has to be of certain persons specified therein. The functions of the authority, as specified under Section-55 of the Act, are, inter alia, to- (a) develop quality and service provision norms for different types of mental health establishments in the State; (b) supervise all mental health establishments in the State and receive complaints about deficiencies in provision of services; (c) register clinical psychologists, mental health nurses and psychiatric social workers in the State to work as mental health professionals, and publish the list of such registered mental health professionals in such manner as may be specified by regulations by the State Authority; (d) train all relevant persons including law enforcement officials, mental health professionals and other health professionals about the provisions and implementation of this Act; (e) discharge such other functions with respect to matters relating to mental health as the State Government may decide. 

The order reads: "Shockingly, as is now evident from the affidavit filed by the State, the said authority has yet not been constituted. Also as to whether there was one under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987 is not clear from the response....The purpose behind the enactment, as we have already noticed, is to provide mental healthcare and services to persons in need whose mental condition stands determined in terms of Chapter-II of the Act. We notice that such step for establishing the authority commenced only in the year 2020, that too, with the publication of an advertisement in the Newspaper and since then nothing has been done to expedite the process. Even the affidavit filed does not disclose the time-limit within which such process would be completed. We refer to para 8 of affidavit dated 22.01.2022 filed by Additional Director, Health, Bihar, Patna. The averments are as vague as they can be....It is in this backdrop, we are constrained to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to forthwith take all steps ensuring establishment of the authority as stipulated under Section-45 of the Act. Let an affidavit of compliance indicating the latest status, be filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, before the next date. We also expect the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to indicate the steps taken for complying with the other provisions of the Statute; the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition; and the suggestion given for proper and effective implementation on expeditious basis."
 
The same bench passed a 9-page long order dated April 1, 2022. It reiterated the importance and significancethe the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters containing 126 Sections. Chapter III deals with advance directive; Chapter V deals with rights of persons with mental illness; Chapter VI deals with duties of appropriate Government; Chapter VII deals with constitution of Central Mental Health Authority; Chapter IX deals with Finance, Accounts and Audit; Chapter X deals with establishment of Mental Health; Chapter XI deals with Mental Health Review Board; Chapter XII deals with admission, treatment and discharge; Chapter XIII deals with responsibilities of other agencies. In terms of Section 5 of Chapter III, every person, who is not a minor, shall have a right to make an advance directive in writing, specifying the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness. 

The order wondered as to "Whether there is any mechanism in place dealing with mandatory requirement of the statute or directives whereby and whereunder the person has a right to specify in advance the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness and whether an Online Register as mandated by Section 7 has been set up and is being duly maintained? What are the steps undertaken to be made or already stand taken with respect to the right of community living for persons with mental illness under Section 19 where they have rights to not remain in Mental Health Establishments etc.? The Act under Section 20 grants a right of protection from cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and Section 21 provides for a right to equality and non-discrimination. Whether the staffs of already existing mental health institutions have been trained in accordance with these provisions to ensure the realization of these important basic rights? What are the steps taken in fulfillment of the duties imposed on the appropriate Government in this case, the Government of Bihar, vide Chapter VI, in particular Sections 29 and 31 which deal with promotion of mental health and preventive programme and human resource development and training respectively? The State to furnish detailed reasons as to why the time line provided under Section 45 of the Act for the establishment of the Mental Health Authority (nine months) has not been complied with, as noted in our order dated 10.02.2022. As also we note that the order dated 25.02.2022 directed the process to be expedited. What are the steps that have been taken in furtherance thereof. Section 66 of the Act provides the procedure for inspection and enquiry of mental health establishments. Details of inspection and enquiry as also under Section 67, carried out be furnished by the relevant authority before the next date. Section 100 of the Act details duties of Police Officers in respect of persons with mental illness. Whether any training, awareness or sensitization programme has been undertaken to ensure that police officers are able to carry out their duties towards this vulnerable group of people? Section 103 is titled as ‘prisoners with mental illness’. The authorities to furnish particulars of such prisoners as also the steps taken to ensure preparedness of prisons for accepting such
inmates? Section 123 grants power to State Authority to make regulations with respect to minimum standard of quality etc. Whether the State has framed such Rules? If in the affirmative, a copy of the said Rules be supplied to the Court." 

The order reads: "We may also note that the importance of this Act is reflected also in Section 125 where the Central Government has been bestowed with the power to remove any difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Although there was a limitation to this section of two years from the date of commencement of the Act, the legislative intent is clearly that of furthering and improving the mental health institutions and their regulations. It is saddening to see that the State of Bihar even after the passing of more than four and half years has not taken adequate steps in line with the intention of the Parliament. Even more so, in the light of the fact that the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) was launched by the Central Government as far as back in 1982 with the following objectives:-
1. To ensure the availability and accessibility of minimum mental healthcare for all in the foreseeable future, particularly to the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the population;
2. To encourage the application of mental health knowledge in general healthcare and in social development; and
3. To promote community participation in the mental health service development and to stimulate efforts towards self-help in the community;
And yet the entire State of Bihar since after its bifurcation has only one functioning unit and even for that sufficient particulars have not been furnished. It is only after a public spirited person approaches this Court that action is initiated albeit with continued lethargy." 

The State did not address any one of the issues in its affidavit dated March 23, 2022 filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. From the supplementary counter affidavit dated March 23, 2022, filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, it was not clear as to whether the provisions of Rule 6 of the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018 has been complied with. It was not clear as to whether the provisions of Section 62 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 stands complied with. The Court noted that there is only one mental health establishment registered within the State of Bihar although almost 1/10th people of India live within the State of Bihar. 

The Court directed Respondent No. 1, namely, the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to file an affidavit dealing with each one of the averments made in the petition, also specifying as to whether each one of the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder were complied with. 

The 2-page long order dated April 7, 2022 noted that Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar filed his supplementary counter affidavit dated April 7, 2022 vide notification dated April 6, 2022 constituting State Mental Health Authority, as envisaged under the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. This exercise was undertaken only pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court vide order dated April 1, 2022. The counter affidavit stated that a 272 bedded new hospital at BIMHANS, Koilwar at the cost of Rs. 128.96 Crores was being set up.

Notably, the High Court had passed orders dated February 13, 2014 and January 5, 2015 In the matter of News Reports published in The Hindustan Times, Patna Dated 24/10/2013 vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 21462 of 2013. 

In its order dated June 27, 2022, the Court noted that Additional Solicitor General "placed on record a chart indicating the budgetary allocation with respect to the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) under Flexible Pool for Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) under NHM during the period from 2018-19 to 2020-21. Evidently, there is reduction in the budgetary allocation with each succeeding year. We are informed that only on account of non-utilization of funds, the Central Government has taken such a measure."

In its order dated September 27, 2022, it was recorded that the State Mental Health Review Board and State Mental Health Fund was constituted. In its order dated November 16, 2022, it recorded that Review
Board as envisaged under Section 73 of the Mental Health Act, 2017 was not constituted. There were more than 11.2 million persons, moreso below the age of 35 years, who are suffering from several psychiatric disorders as defined under the Act.  

In its 2-page long order dated December 8, 2023, High Court's Division Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Rajiv Roy recorded the affidavit dated October 12, 2023 by the respondent pointed out that the State Mental Health Authority and the State Mental Health Review Board have been constituted. The Mental Health Review Board have been constituted in 9 divisional headquarters of the State, i.e. Patna, Chapra, Gaya, Muzzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Purnea, Saharsa and Munger under the Chairmanship of District and Sessions Judges, the Districts which is the divisional headquarters. The order reads: "The District Judges of the divisional headquarters afore-mentioned shall file a report on the intimation of such constitution having been received by them and the steps taken to convene the Review Board, within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry shall issue a certified copy of this order to the above said District Judges at the divisional headquarters, who shall file a report through the Registrar General."

The High Court' Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, passed a 2-page long order dated November 22, 2024 recorded that out of the nine Divisional Commissionerates, in eight Commissionerates Mental Health Review Boards have been constituted, however, in Saran, no Board has been constituted for reason of the district having no medical colleges and no psychiatrist. The Court observed: "2. We do not think that this is a reason to not constitute a Board for the said Divisional Commissionerate also. 3. The learned AAG submits that steps will be taken to constitute a Board in the said district also within a period of two weeks." 

In its 3-page long order dated March 7, 2025, High Court's of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy recorded that mere setting up of Review Boards in different Commissionerates would not be of any avail to the people suffering from mental health, unless funds were allocated for the purpose. There was no allocation of funds towards making the Mental Health Review Boards functional, thus, rendering the Boards in nine Commissionerates to be in existence only on paper. For effective implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the State must take pro-active steps with respect to prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues. There is no updated report on behalf of the State with respect to the number of half-way homes, shelter accommodation; supported accommodation and other places where persons suffering from mental health issues could be sent. The need for steps for the outreach of the Act to jail inmates remained unaddressed.

The same bench passed a 3-page long order dated May 16, 2025, wherein, it noted that for smooth functioning of the State Mental Health Tribunal, a fund of Rs. 40 lacs was allocated by the Health Department for 2025-26. The order reads: "The allocation of funds to Mental Health Review Boards shall be done after collating all information with respect to such Boards and the proposal of work which can be handed over or entrusted to them. Such allocation also shall be made without wastage of any further time. 4. With respect to the query of the Court regarding outreach of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to jail inmates and the infrastructure in the shape of half-way homes and accommodation shelters, it appears that only information is being sought from the relevant quarters." It recorded that the allocated fund would be meaningless unless it comes to the Board along with the proposal of work programme which was mandated under Section 53(1)(c) of the Act of 2017. 6. Similarly, even with Review Boards, such allocation of fund and proposal for work programme has to be supplied by the State. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules, 2018 command for setting up of a mental health establishment in at-least one prison in the State. It concluded: "8. It has rightly been pointed out that there is no information in the affidavit regarding compliance of such requirement under the Act and the Rules."

Significantly, it was after 38 order have been passed by the High Court that in the case filed on November 20, 2021 and registered on November 25, 2021, that a PIL entitled "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report" was filed in mid-February 2026.
  

Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya sets aside perverse judgment, decree of 2010 passed by Sub-Judge II, Bhojpur, Ara in a Money Suit of 1999

In Priyadarshi Rameshwar Construction Company (P) Ltd. vs.  State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya of Patna High Court delivered a 24-page long judgement dated April 8, 2026, wherein, he concluded:" this Court finds that it is an admitted and undisputed position that the appellant/plaintiff had duly executed and completed the contractual work entrusted to him in the year 2016 within the stipulated time and had thereafter raised the requisite bills in accordance with the terms of the contract. It is further not in dispute that the respondents failed to release the admitted dues within a reasonable period and ultimately made payment only in the year 2023, i.e., after an inordinate and unexplained delay of nearly seven years. The sole defence sought to be advanced by the respondents, both before the court below and in the present proceedings, is that the agreement does not contain any specific clause providing for payment of interest on delayed disbursement. However, such a contention cannot be countenanced in law, inasmuch as it is well settled that the State and its instrumentalities are under a constitutional obligation to act fairly, reasonably and in a non-arbitrary manner in all contractual dealings. The failure to release legitimate dues for an unduly prolonged period, without any cogent justification, amounts to arbitrary withholding of money lawfully due and payable, thereby entitling the claimant to reasonable compensation by way of interest." Notably, Rameshwar Tiwary, the Director of the company in question argued the case in person.

Justice Malviya observed: "In the present case, the appellant has discharged his initial burden, whereas the respondents have failed to adduce any evidence in rebuttal. The learned Trial Court has thus erred in law in placing undue emphasis on technical deficiencies while ignoring substantive evidence on record. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are therefore perverse, being based on non-consideration of material evidence and misapplication of legal principles. 25. The appellant, having established execution of work and corresponding liability of the respondents, is also legally entitled to interest on the decretal amount, both on equitable and statutory considerations. It is well settled that where a party is deprived of the use of money lawfully due to him, interest is payable by way of compensation for such deprivation."

This First Appeal was filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the judgment and decree dated April 3, 2010 passed by the Sub-Judge II, Bhojpur, Ara (Trial Court) in Money Suit No. 04 of 1999 wherein the plaintiff/appellant’s suit for money claim arose out of contract/agreement was dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court's judgement does not mention the name of the judge of the trial court in question.  

In pursuance of tenders invited by the State Government the plaintiff/appellant, Priyadarshi Constructions Company Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, which registered Companies Act, 1956 was awarded 15 separate works for which independent agreements were executed with the concerned departments. 

The plaintiff/appellant duly executed the works with due diligence and in accordance with contractual stipulations to the satisfaction of the competent authorities, whereupon the works were measured, verified, and recorded in the departmental records and part payments were released from time to time. However, certain works were discontinued midway by the defendants on account of administrative constraints, including non-availability of funds, though the works already executed were duly accepted; nevertheless, despite completion and acceptance of the works, a substantial amount remained outstanding and payable to the plaintiff, and notwithstanding repeated demands and representations, including those made pursuant to directions issued in earlier writ proceedings, the defendants failed and neglected to release the admitted dues and rejected the claims on arbitrary and untenable grounds; consequently, the plaintiff was constrained to serve a statutory notice under Section 80 of the CPC and, upon expiry of the prescribed period without compliance, had instituted the suit for recovery of Rs. 17,40,989/- towards the outstanding dues. 

The Trial Court had framed following issues for determination:
I. Whether the suit of plaintiff is maintainable as framed?
II. Have the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the suit?
III. Whether the plaintiff has served the notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the defendants.
IV. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the decree of of amount claimed by him?
V. Whether the plaintiff is entitle to get the relief and other reliefs as claimed under plaint?

The other eighteen respondents in the High Court were: Secretary/Commissioner, Water Resource Department, Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resource Department, Managing Director, Bihar State Construction Corporation Ltd., Anishabad, Patna, Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department, Dehri-On-Sone, Rohtas, Chief Engineer Water Resource Department, Aurangabad, Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Circle, Ara, Bhojpur,  Superintending Engineer Flood Control Circle, Buxar, Superintending Engineer, North Koal Canal Circle, Gaya, Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division No. 2, Ara, Bhojpur, Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Ara, Bhojpur, Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Buxar, Executive Engineer, North Koal Canal Division Goh, Aurangabad, Commissioner/Secretary, Minor Irrigation Department, Patna, Co-Ordinator/Chief Engineer, Tube-Well Project, Patna, 16. Superintending Engineer, Tube Well Circle, Patna, Superintending Engineer, Tube Well Circle, Ara, Bhojpur, Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Patna West Bihta, Patna and  Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division Ara, Bhojpur. 

Justice Malviya added:"30. This Court is of the considered opinion that the absence of an express stipulation in the contract for payment of interest does not ipso facto disentitle the appellant from claiming the same, particularly where the delay is wholly attributable to the respondents and is neither justified nor explained by any acceptable material. A contractor entering into an agreement with the Government legitimately expects that payments for completed works would be made within a reasonable time, and while some administrative delay may be anticipated, a delay extending to seven years is per se unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of settled principles of fairness in State action. The appellant cannot be made to suffer for lapses on the part of the authorities, and the retention of his dues for such a prolonged period confers an unjust enrichment upon the respondents. Accordingly, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to be compensated for the delayed payment by way of reasonable interest, notwithstanding the absence of a contractual clause, and the contrary finding, if any, recorded by the learned court below cannot be sustained in the eye of law."

The judgement reads:"31. Accordingly, the point for determination framed by this Court is answered in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants and against the defendants/respondents. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to interest on the decretal amount. The impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Trial Court, to the extent it denies such interest, is unsustainable in law and is hereby set aside."  

Justice Malviya pointed out that the Appellate Court has the discretionary power to admit the additional evidence, primarily to prevent the miscarriage of justice and when the evidence is crucial for a just judgment. Notably, it is well settled law that a First Appellate Court has wide powers to re-appreciate evidence provided under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC. He noted that the entire Trial Court record it was apparent that the document proposed to include as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 was on record before the Trial Court but the same was not exhibited by the Trial Court. So, the documents are fit to be exhibited as additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27(1) of the CPC.

In this regard, Justice Malviya relied on t he judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Venkataramiah vs. A. Seetharama Reddy & Ors., reported in AIR 1963 SC 1526. It held: “The Appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence, not only if it requires such evidence 'to enable it to pronounce judgment, but also for 'any other substantial cause'. There may be cases where the Court finds that it is able to pronounce a judgment on record as it is, and cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that, in the interests of justice, something which remains obscure should be filled up, so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory manner, Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for only substantial cause under Rule 27.” 

The High Court observed: "19. It is also well settled that once execution of work is established and the same has been accepted by the department, the liability to make payment necessarily follows. It would be unreasonable to deny payment for the work actually done. The State cannot take advantage of its own wrong and refuse to pay for work executed." 

In State of West Bengal vs. B.K. Mondal & Sons, reported in AIR 1962 SC 779 observed:“if a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation”. 

The High Court observed that "the aforesaid principle, embodied under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, clearly applies where the State derives benefit from work executed." 

In A.T. Brij Paul Singh vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1703, the Supreme Court held: “11. Now if it is well-established that the respondent was guilty of breach of contract in as much as the recission of contract by the respondent is held to be unjustified, and the plaintiff-contractor had executed a part of the works contract, the contractor would be entitled to damages by way of loss of profit, Adopting the measure accepted by the High Court in the facts and circumstances of the case between the same parties and for the same type of work at 15% of the value of the remaining parts of the work contract, the damages for loss of profit can be measured.” 

In State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Ferro Concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) 12 SCC 1 the Supreme Court observed that once execution of work is established and accepted, the contractor becomes entitled to payment in accordance with law. In the present case, the M.B. entries, duly verified by competent authorities, clearly establish execution of work and corresponding liability. The respondents, having failed to rebut such evidence, cannot deny payment, as the same would amount to unjust enrichment. In furtherance thereto, it is well settled that though the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own case, once prima facie evidence is adduced, the burden shifts upon the defendant.

Justice Malviya referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ibrahim Uddin and Anr., reported (2012) 8 SCC 148, wherein, it observed that a party cannot succeed on the weakness of the defence; however, once sufficient evidence is produced, the burden shifts on the opposite party to rebut the same. 

In this regard, the Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa vs. G.C. Roy, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 508  “33. In the case before us, admittedly the contract does not provide that no interest is payable on the amount that may be found due to any one of them. If so, it follows that the seller, namely, the firm is entitled to claim interest from the date on which the price became due and payable. The finding of the arbitrator in this case is that the price became payable on June 7, 1958. As held by this Court in Union of India v. A.L. Rallia Ram which related to an arbitration proceeding, under Sub-section (2) of Section 61, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the seller is eligible to be awarded interest on the amount of the price for the goods sold. On this principle it follows that the award of interest from June 7, 1958 is justified.”

In Alok Shanker Pandey vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1198, the Supreme Court observed: “9. It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned
interest on it for this period. Hence, equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B. 

Justice Malviya observed: "28. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the appellant had executed the work and the same was duly recorded in official documents; however, despite such execution and acknowledgment, the respondents failed to release the admitted dues, thereby unjustly retaining the amount and depriving the appellant of its lawful use. Such retention of money by the State amounts to unjust enrichment and warrants compensation by way of interest. Further, under Section 34 of the CPC, the Court is empowered to award reasonable interest on the principal sum adjudged from the date of institution of the suit till realization. The grant of interest, therefore, is not only equitable but also statutorily recognized." 

Justice Jitendra Kumar quashes order by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur

In Lalan Prasad Singh vs. The State Of Bihar through The Principal Secretary., Food And Civil Supply (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court passed an order dated April, 7, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"41. . Hence, I find that learned Executive Magistrate has initiated the proceeding without any jurisdiction. There was no occasion for the Executive Magistrate to initiate proceeding against the petitioner under Section 107 Cr.PC. Learned Executive Magistrate, under the guise of acting within its authority/jurisdiction has transcended his authority/jurisdiction. The petitioner should have been prosecuted for the substantive offence alleged committed by him. 42. Initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC against the petitioner is nothing but infringement/curtailment of fundamental right of liberty of the petitioner as granted and granting by the Constitution under Article 21. The life and liberty of a citizen cannot be allowed to be curtailed or restricted in a manner as done by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to entertain the writ petition and quash the proceeding. 43. Hence, by resort to writ of certiorari, the entire proceeding initiated under Section 107 Cr.PC vide order dated 03.04.2021, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur in Case No. 437 of 2021 is quashed. The present petition stands allowed, accordingly."

The judgment reads: "Learned Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court of learned Executive Magistrate concerned. Learned Registrar General is also directed to send a copy of this order to Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for circulating this order amongst the Executive Magistrates for their information."

The judgement reads:"....on scrutiny of the alleged facts and circumstances against the petitioner, it clearly transpires that at most the petitioner has committed substantive offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and hence, he should have been prosecuted for such offences. There was no allegation of any overt-act which could give apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility. It has been already found that Section 107 Cr.PC is preventive in nature and not punitive. If the petitioner or accused had committed any offence, he could have been prosecuted, but on the basis of the offence committed, the learned Executive Magistrate had no occasion to initiate proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC which confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the Executive Magistrate for taking preventive measure to maintain public peace and it has been already shown that public peace is much wider concept. For application of the provisions under Section 107 Cr.PC, there must be allegation of overt-act which may lead to breach of public peace affecting the public at large. Only on account of the fear under which some individuals may be living due to threat being extended by the petitioner does not mean that would lead to breach of public peace. 

The other 10 respondents were:  Director, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar,  Information and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur, District Food Supply Officer, Bhagalpur, Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Naugachchiya Bhagalpur, Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur, Officer-in-charge, Naugachchia, lock Marketing Officer, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur and  Assistant District Supply Officer, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur. 

The criminal writ petition was preferred by the petitioner to seek quashing of the entire proceeding in Case No. 437 of 2021 initiated vide order dated April 3, 2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur under Section 107 Cr.PC.

Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Soni Shrivastava condones delay of 753 days in NDPS case against Nav Kumar Ojha

In Nav Kumar Ojha vs. The Union of India through the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Patna, Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Soni Shrivastava passed a 2-page long order dated March 31, 2026, wherein, it condoned the delay of 753 days. The order reads:"5. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 753 days in filing the present appeal. 6. It is stated in the application that the delay has occurred because of long custody of the appellant in jail, he had lost his entire source of earning and his wife was ill. 7. Having regard to the reasons shown and there being no opposition to the application for condonation of delay, we condone the delay. 8. I.A. No.1 of 2025 is allowed." 

Dr. Gopal Krishna, the Advocate of the petitioner had informed the court that the three convicts, namely, Nav Kumar Ojha, Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda were convicted in the same NDPS case by the trial court. The case of Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda (Cr. App. (DB) 629 of 2023) and that of Nav Kumar Ojha Cr. App. (DB) 1014 of 2025 are before the same bench of the High Court. In this regard, the Court's order reads: "9. It is informed that the present appeal is connected with Cr. Appeal (DB) No.629 of 2023, which is an admitted matter and listed under the heading ‘For Hearing’ in the today’s cause list. 10.  Taking note of the above information, we admit this appeal and direct to tag the present appeal with Cr. Appeal (DB) No.629 of 2023. This appeal shall be listed simultaneously with the said appeal under the same heading."

The FIR in this case was filed on February 2, 2021. On an earlier occasion the Court was informed Pritam Lakra, the petitioner "has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. as well as seizure list that nothing has been recovered from conscious possession of the petitioner rather the recovery has been made from the truck in question. He further submits that the petitioner is the cleaner of the truck in question and he has no concern at all with the alleged recovery of contraband." This aspect is recorded in the High Court's 3-page long order dated June 20, 2023.  Notably, bail application of Bijendra Kumar Rai and Prita Lakda was rejected by Court of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara on November 1, 2021. Their case was argued by Bhuneshwar Tiwari and Sudhir Ju Sahaye. The Rana Pratap Singh was the public prosecutor. Pritam Lakra had appealed in the High Court against the order of the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara without success. 

It is not clear from  the records as to whether Bijendra Kumar Rai had appealed in the High Court against the order of the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara.       

Prior to this a application for regular bail of Shankar Yadav was filed on August 2-August, 2022 in the High Court. It was registered on August 23, 2022. It was dismissed as withdrawn. Prior to this Justice Arun Kumar Jha had passed an order dated December 20, 2022. The order reads: "Call for a report regarding the present stage of trial as well as time likely to be taken up in conclusion of the trial from the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bhojpur(Ara), in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 06 of 2021 arising out of N.C.B. Case No. 01 of 2021, so as to reach this Court within a period of four weeks. List this case after receipt of the report." Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar passed an order dated February 13, 2023 reads: "In view of the report of the trial court, charge has been framed and the case has been put for evidence. On the above ground, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. Permission is accorded. This application stands dismissed as withdrawn."  

The bail application of both ShankarYadav and Pritam Lakda was rejected by the High Court. 

The paper book prepared by the High Court's Registry has the compliant petition filed on July 28, 2021 against Bijendra Kumar Ray, Nav Kumar Ojha, Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakda does not have the copy of the FIR dated February 2,2021. The complaint petition does not refer to the FIR. for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(b) (ii) (c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act. The N.C.B. Case No. NCB/PZU/V/01/2021 was registered on February 2, 2021, the date of the seizure of the truck at Koilwar-Chapra More, Bhojpur. Notably, Bijendra Kumar Ray, the recipient of the Ganja in question has been acquitted by the trial court. No case has been registered against Sundar Rao and Damu, the suppliers of Ganja from Koraput, Odisha. Their names are mentioned in the complaint petition. The complaint petition mentions the name of Narad from Uttar Pradesh but does not explain his role.  All the four have been acquitted of charges under Section  29 of NDPS Act, which pertains to criminal conspiracy.    

Policy Brief makes a case for UN Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Reactors after entry into force of UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to prevent ecocide

Amid ongoing war which has disrupted the global supply chain and an imminent assault on nuclear reactors, the policy brief focuses on multiple notions of water security in the context of Himalayan nuclear ecosystem. It explores the question as to whether time has come to adopt a UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear reactors as well now that the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has come into force. The water footprint of 12, 241 nuclear weapons, 2, 000 nuclear tests including underwater testing and 495 nuclear reactors assumes significance for ensuring comprehensive water security in general and in the Himalayan region in particular.

Out of the nine nuclear weapon owning countries, three are in this region. Among these three countries, China has 600, India has 180 and Pakistan has 170 nuclear warheads in their inventory. As of 2024, 31 countries worldwide are operating 417 nuclear reactors for electricity generation and 62 nuclear power reactors are under construction. India has 21 nuclear reactors, reactors are under construction and 4 reactors are in status suspended operation. In Bihar, under the Nuclear Power Mission announced in the Union Budget 2025-26, one nuclear reactor has been proposed at Rajauli in Nawada district. Besides the one proposed in Bihar, the nuclear plant in Narora, Bulandsahar, Uttar Pradesh and the upcoming two units of nuclear plants in Rooppur, Pabna, Bangladesh have grave implications for water security and health security in the Ganga river basin. There are six operating nuclear power plants in Pakistan and one under construction. Two nuclear power reactors are under construction in Bangladesh. China has 57 nuclear power reactors and 29 are under construction. The top three producers of nuclear electricity in 2023 were the US, China and France. 

The policy brief makes a case for tracking environmental and occupational exposure in civilian and non-civilian nuclear sites. It draws on the definition of “nuclear material” and “nuclear damage” in India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 and water and waste related provisions under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, which have been repealed by The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025. It is essential for effective preventive policy interventions to factor in water footprint of civilian and non-civilian nuclear activities to ensure comprehensive water security of human and non-human beings beyond anthropocentric national security narrative around it. 

This policy brief makes a case for preventing any nuclear incident which may induce point source non-point source of radioactive contamination in surface, ground water bodies, and other water resources. It makes a case for study of the impact of nuclear contaminated water on human beings, animals, plants and crops. It stresses the necessity for legal remedy based on independent assessment factoring in World Health Organisation (WHO), agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this backdrop, the policy brief provides an outline for Himalayan river basin security which is essential for ensuring complete justice from the perspective of environmental security, food security, epidemiological security, and security of life. The policy brief is available at: http://www.mcrg.ac.in/Security_Studies_2025/Policy_Brief_Gopal_Krishna.pdf