Bihar universities will have to wait for directions of 48th Chief Justice to get 289 librarians from state government

Underlining the significance of librarians, Chief Justice Sangam Kumar cited Neil Gaiman, the author of The Graveyard Book who said, “Google can bring you back 1,00,000 answers, a librarian can bring you back the right one."  

In Dr. Ranganathan Rajya Pustakalaya Samiti & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench  of Chief Justice Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 10-page long order dated May 15, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"In the eyes of the law, a vacant librarian post, especially in a University is not merely an administrative oversight; it is seen as a functional breakdown in the "administration of justice" and the "academic health" of an institution. The vacancy of a librarian is not an administrative choice but a failure of the State's duty to provide the necessary infrastructure for education and justice. In the absence of a Librarian, physical collection of books deteriorate without proper preservation protocols, reference services remain absent, institutional subscriptions to journals and databases are not procured, managed, or optimised, and no systematic weeding or collection takes place. 7. With the aforesaid direction and observation, the matter be listed on 06.07.2026." The order was authored by the outgoing chief justice who is retiring on June 4, 2026. The case will now be heard by the next chief justice. 

The petitioner no. 2 is Harishanker Prakash, a resident of Mahinawan Bazar, Maner, Patna. The other five respondents are: Chancellor of the University of Bihar, Patna, Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Patna, Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Patna, Patna University and Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

The case was filed on December 17, 2020 and registered on January 23, 2021. Significantly, five chief justices, namely, Justices Sanjay Karol, K. Vinod Chandran, Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, P.B. Bajanthri and now Sahoo heard the case since June 2021 but the posts of the librarians have not been filled up.   

The High Court's 4-page long order dated March 25, 2026 reads: "This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to initiate the process of appointment to the post of Librarian in various higher educational institutions in the State of Bihar, as the posts have remained unfilled since 1990. Consequently, the libraries have become defunct and are being run by unqualified persons in an unprofessional manner, resulting in immense difficulties for the students, faculty members, as well as the colleges and educational institutions in the State of Bihar." Amicus Curiae placed before the Court a datasheet regarding the number of vacancies in different Universities in the State of Bihar, which reveals that 289 posts of librarians are vacant. A copy of the datasheet was furnished to P.K Shahi the Advocate General, who sought some time to obtain instruction. Advocate General sought adjournment on April 30, 2026 and prayed for a short adjournment on May 6, 2026 to ensure filing of a supplementary counter affidavit bringing on record necessary facts.

The May 15, 026 order has recorded that in pursuance of the order of the High Court dated May 13, 2026, the Vice-Chancellors of the different Universities, namely, Munger University, Munger; Patliputra University, Patna; Maulana Mazharul Haque Arabic & Persian University, Patna; Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga; Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga; Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur; B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura; Purnea University, Purnea; Veer Kunwar Singh University, Ara; Magadh University, Bodh Gaya; Patna University, Patna; Jai Prakash University, Chapra; and Baba Saheb Bheem Rao Ambedkar University, Muzaffarpur; Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna as well as Nalanda Open University are connected through virtual mode in the proceeding.

The High Court's order dated May 13, 2026 reads:"2. In terms of the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by this Court, notices along with a copy of the writ petition and the said order were transmitted through e-mail to the Vice-Chancellors of all the Universities referred to therein. The e-mail service reports have also been brought on record. However, despite service of notice, no response has been filed on behalf of any of the Vice-Chancellors of the concerned Universities till date. 3. The matter was earlier taken up on 30.04.2026 and, on the prayer made by the learned Advocate General seeking a short adjournment, the case has been listed today. From the record, it appears that neither any affidavit nor any document has been filed on behalf of the Vice-Chancellors concerned. It further appears that no steps have been taken either for filing a response or for engagement of counsel to represent them before this Court. 4. Considering the importance of the matter, this Court is left with no option but to direct the personal appearance of all the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities referred in the order dated 25.03.2026, particularly those mentioned in paragraph 4 thereof. 5. Accordingly, all the Vice-Chancellors shall ensure their presence through virtual mode on 15.05.2026 at 11:00 A.M."

The order dated May 15, 026 reads:"5. In order to resolve the dispute, and the acute scarcity of Librarians, as has been raised in the present Public Interest Litigation, we direct all the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities to ensure that where the roster clearance has not been done, they shall take all the requisite necessary actions to get the roster clearance done expeditiously and thereupon, send the requisition to the Director, Higher Education. Since the roster clearance is to be made at the level of the Divisional Commissioner, we further direct the Divisional Commissioner of all the Divisions, where the process of roster clearance is pending, to take up the matter forthwith and pass necessary order with regard to the roster clearance. It is made clear that in those Universities where the list of necessary vacancy position has not been sent for roster clearance, the concerned Vice-Chancellor of the said Universities must ensure and send the list of on date vacancies to the concerned Divisional Commissioner for roster clearance. In order to ensure that all the vacancies are filled up immediately, we will also provide the timeline to all the concerned authorities. In those cases, where vacancies position of the posts have not been sent up to the office of Divisional Commissioner, it must be sent within two weeks from today. The Divisional Commissioners of respective division are directed to complete the formalities of roster clearance within a further period of two weeks. On receipt of the roster clearance, the Vice-Chancellor of different Universities shall ensure that requisition for filling up the vacancies must reach in the office of Director, Higher Education within a further period of two weeks. It is expected that all the authorities must adhere to the timeline, framed hereinabove."

Prior to this High Court's order dated September 15, 2023 recorded:"A counter affidavit dated 27.07.2023 puts forth steps taken by the Government in making appointments to the post of Librarians. It is the submission of the Government that before proceeding with the selection, the Government has attempted to
ascertain the sanctioned posts of non-teaching employees of Grade-III in University/Constituent Colleges of the State, so as to have a clear picture of the existing vacancies of the Librarians. A communication was issued to all the Universities which have been replied to and the collation of data has been going on." 

Earlier, the High Court's order dated April 7, 2023 recorded that counter affidavits filed in 2021 had submitted to the High Court that there was a proposal to appoint a Commission to carry out the appointments, especially since the appointments carried out by the Universities were not approved by the State Government. The 4th respondent, i.e., the Director, Higher Education, Education Department, was asked to file an affidavit as to the further steps taken in constituting a Commission and making the appointments to the post of Librarians as sought for, in the writ petition. 

It is noteworthy that the report of the Bihar Assembly Library Committee presented to the assembly had pointed out in 2023 that from over 500 six decades back, the number of public libraries in the state has gone down to 51. Sudama Prasad, the chairperson of the committee had presented its report for the first time in the 100 years' history of the Vidhan Sabha. Director (library and information) Sachindra Kumar had announced the formation of a state-level library planning committee headed by additional chief secretary in December 2022. As per the data submitted by the education department to the library committee of the assembly, out of the 38 districts in the state, only 19 have central libraries. Notably, divisional libraries are there only in six of the nine divisional headquarters in the state. 

Also read: How Bihar is rapidly losing the libraries that it was once famous for 

"Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidanand Sinha Library (Requisition & Management) Act, 2015 is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14":Supreme Court 

Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachidanand Sinha Library (Requisition And Management) Act, 2015 is constitutionally valid: Patna High Court

 

 

 

Justice Satyavrat Verma rejected bail in a murder case

In Brajnod Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed an order dated February 26, 2026, wherein, he rejected the second attempt to secure bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 342, 324, 307, 302, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Earlier, Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated July 14, 2023 wherein, he had concluded:"8. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with a Madhuban P. S. case of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/successor Court. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected."

The counsel for the petitioners submitted thatpetitioners are persons with clean antecedents. The informant alleged that while she along with her husband were returning home in the night, they were intercepted by the accused persons including the petitioners and they assaulted her husband by iron rod causing injury leading to his death. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were falsely implicated in the present case. It was also submitted that it was night as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioners who had assaulted the husband of the informant by iron rod causing injury leading to his death. It was further submitted that during the course of investigation, it came out that the husband of the informant died on account of fall of a bamboo which was being erected. It was also submitted that even the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation. It was also submitted that the viscera was preserved and sent to the FSL for examination. It was submitted that though it was alleged that both the petitioners assaulted the husband of the informant by an iron rod causing injury leading to his death but then during the postmortem only one injury was found on the deceased. 

The A.P.P. for the State and counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the police investigation was not admissible in evidence during the course of trial. 

Will Supreme Court's prompt adoption of "austerity measures", National Judicial Data Grid pave way for endless surveillance of all judicial institutions like other institutions?

"

"The ultimate safeguard of the independence of lawyers lies in the legal system and in society ... In a society and a legal system in which the rule of law and human rights do not find the pride of place, lawyers are relegated to an inferior position and their independence, honour and dignity can be violated with impunity. Equally, an independent judiciary is an essential guarantee of an independent legal profession. The independence of the judiciary and the independence of lawyers are interdependent and complementary."

-Dr. L.M. Singhvi, UN Special Rapporteur 

 

Is Judiciary becoming more executive minded than the executive?   

Responding to representations from the Supreme Court Bar Association, the Court has clarified that while advocates are encouraged to continue appearing via video conferencing in matters listed on miscellaneous and partial working days, those unable to join online for unavoidable reasons may appear physically before courts functioning in person. Patna High Court is yet to provide similar relief. Earlier, Patna High Court issued Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on May 16, 2026 regarding implementation of certain "austerity measures" in light of email dated May 15, 2026 received from Supreme Court of India through Letter dated May 15, 2026 from the Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India to the Chief Justice, Patna High Court (Reference: Circular of Supreme Court of India, F.No. 183/22/2026-SG, New Delhi, May 15, 2026 issued in view of Office Memorandum signed by Shri Ngulkhosat Under Secretary (Administration), Capacity Building Commission (CBC), National Programme for Civil Services Capacity Building (NPCSCB) – Mission Karmayogi launched in September 2020. The Mission Karmayogi aims to transform approximately 1.5 crore government officials across the Centre, the States, and the local bodies. Does it include judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts in its ambit? Are Chief Justice of India and Chief Justices of High Courts deemed Pillar Heads? Does it not further the cause of executivisation of high judiciary? Will austerity measures be used to make higher judiciary totally subservient to executive officials for Mission Karmyogi under CBC?  

The Office Memorandum on subject of Internal instructions in the light of recent developments in the country-Reg reads:"The undersigned is directed to inform that the Pillar Heads may devise a Roster of resources under their control permitting Work From Home upto two days per week ensuring that at least 50% of the staff are available in the office. The Roster thus formed may be shared with Admin. Further the Pillar Heads may kindly instruct the resources who were permitted 'Work From Home' to be available on telephone and be ready to attend office, in case of requirement, at any time. The Pillar Heads shall also ensure timely completion of the various tasks assigned to them, adhering to these instructions. 2. In the light of recent developments, the Pillar Heads are also requested not to recommend for organizing any physical events/workshops within Delhi or outside Delhi or depute any resource for travel outside Delhi but make all efforts to convene all the requisite meetings through VCs/online mode. 3. For any deviation in above instructions on functional grounds, prior approval of Secretary, CBC would be required. 4. The above instructions must be complied by all concerned, with immediate effect and till further orders." The Office Memorandum has been sent to "All Pillar Heads and Personnel of CBC with copy to "All personnel working with CBC". It is claimed that CBC is the custodian of the Mission Karmayogi framework, to drive civil service reforms through capacity building and competency-based learning. 

 

As per Patna High Court's SOP, the matters listed from May 18, 2026 to June 4, 2026 is being heard only by Video Conferencing. Joint Registrar List, Registrar (1T) and Registrar (Establishment) has been directed to co-ordinate with each other to take necessary steps in this regard. Advocate are entitled to appear without restriction before the High Court through a Video Conferencing facility. However, the Patna High Court may regulate the participation of a litigant [or any other person] as per its Rules or Practice Directions issued time to time. The links for each Court is being provided in the daily Cause List. which is published on the website of the High Court. SOP reads: "4. All the cases must be e-filed as per the E-fling Rules. 5. Ld. Advocates and Advocate Clerks are requested to keep their footfalls in the High Court premises to minimum. 6. If the Stamp reporter finds a case defective, the same shall be notified and communicated to the Ld. Advocate through email. Ld. Advocates are requested to remove defects in such a manner that the physical footfall at Hon'ble Patna High Court is kept to a minimum." 

 

The SOP reads: "7. While accessing the virtual platform, Ld. Advocate shall be required to enter details like name, item number, party for which she/he/they are appearing, or such other information as required by the High Court. If appearing in more than one matter, case numbers of all matters shall be provided. 8. Participants should avoid using multiple devices at remote location to eliminate the chance of echo/ disturbance. 9. The Ld. Advocate must be dressed in professional attire. If the Ld. Advocate is not dressed in professional attire, in case of non-compliance, the right of audience may be withdrawn by the Court. Similarly. a party in person must be appropriately dressed. 10. Court proceedings conducted through video conferencing are judicial proceedings for all purposes, and all protocols applicable to physical courts shall apply to virtual proceedings. I1. Mobile phones of all participants shall be switched off or kept in aeroplane mode during the proceedings. 12. Ld. Advocate/parties in person may log in from their office, residence, conference room. etc., but not from a vehicle such as car. The remote location should be quiet and have sufficient internet connectivity. The camera must remain switched on during the Court proceedings. All participants should endeavour to look into the camera, remain attentive and refrain from engaging in any other activity during the proceedings. 13. Only the Ld. Advocate or duly authorized person in the matter would be entitled to address the Court. The Court coordinator may mute or unmute any other participant(s). 14. Ld. Advocates/ participants shall regulate their microphones to avoid disturbing the court proceedings. At the time of joining, the microphone should be kept muted. The microphone may be unmated only when the matter is called out. The Court may direct the court coordinator to mute microphone in case of  disturbance." 

 

The SOP states: "I5. If any participant indulges in conduct considering inappropriate, they may be excluded from the VC proceedings, and action as directed by the Court may be taken. 16. No recording of the court proceedings is permitted, except with prior leave granted by the Court. 17. Ld. Advocates/participants may seek assistance through the chat facility, wherever available. The facility shall be used only for technical assistance or for inquiring about the item number of the case being heard. The Court coordinator shall respond on a best effort basis. 18. Ld. Advocates may submit a memo of appearance in the manner notified by the concerned Court. 19. Ld. Advocates may mention their case(s) via Video Conference before the concerned Hon'ble Motion Bench. Upon mentioning, the Hon'ble Court mav assign appropriate time for virtual hearing. Ld. Counsels may join proceeding through the link available on the Patna High Court Website. 20. If the number of participants exceeds or is likely to exceed the permitted limit, the Court Co-ordinator may remove viewers not participating in the Court proceedings. Ld. Advocates/litigants appearing in later items may also be requested to log out. 21 In case of in-camera proceedings, virtual hearings may be restricted to the parties and/or their Ld. Advocates. 22. Court Masters should specifically mark in CIS the cases heard through virtual mode for future reference."

 

The High Court's SOP further reads: "23. All the Technical Assistants of the respective Courts shall create the permanent VC links and post it on the website through their designated login. They shall ensure that the hybrid system remains operational in Court rooms on every working day before 8 A.M. without fail. 24. The respective Court Master shall ensure compliance with points 19 and 20 above. The Court Master Section In-Charge shall oversee the entire operation and act as Nodal person disseminating directions relating to the VC hearings in this regard to avoid any inconvenience to Hon'ble Court. 25. The present SOP shall be in addition to the Video Conferencing Rules notified by the High Court and not in derogation thereof." 

 

In the backdrop of Supreme Court's circular dated May 18, 026, there is a compelling logic for Patna High Court to provide similar reprieve to those who are unable to join online for unavoidable reasons may appear physically before courts functioning in person.

 

Executivisation of judiciary after executivisation of legislature

  

Is it impossible for executive to take total control of higher judiciary by amalgamating the austerity measures of CBC with National Judicial Data Grid which was inaugurated by the 40th Chief Justice of India P Sathasivam along with the 30th law minister Kapil Sibal at Supreme Court on August 7, 2013? The report of the Task Force for preparation of the Policy Document on Identity and Access Management under National e-Governance Programme submitted in April 2007 revealed that "National UID Project has been initiated, with Voter ID Numbers and BPL households in the first instance." The report disclosed that each registered judicial court has a UID number at Subordinate Courts, High Court and Supreme Court. This initiative seemed to be part of profiling and surveillance of judicial institutions and its officers. Notably, Wipro Ltd. was assigned the task of preparing the "UIDAI Strategic Vision: Creating a Unique Identity Number for every Resident of India" around the same period by the Processes Committee of the Planning Commission in July 2006. Its report talked about "Citizen Identities" and "Owner of identities". These initiatives pave the way for unending and endless indiscriminate surveillance. The path being traversed by National Judicial Data Grid, a database of orders, judgments and case details of 18,735 computerised District and Subordinate Courts which has created as an online platform under the eCourts Project, has reached the stage of launch of the Interoperable Criminal Justice System, which seeks to integrate and make data interoperable between different institutions, such as police, prisons and courts, involved in the criminal justice system. This seems to be the path of extinction of separation of powers.

Notably, it came to light that the audio feed of the Rajya Sabha is under the control of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs. It came to light when Rajya Sabha proceedings was disrupted during the passage of three controversial agricultural bills, which has now been repealed due to world' biggest farmers' protest. In a letter to the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, CPWD attempted to explain that the 20-minute audio blackout on September 20, 2020 between 13:05 and 13:35 hours. 

 

Jagdeep Dhankhar, the 14th Chairman of Rajya Sabha, the second highest constitutional office in the country abruptly resigned from his post on July 21, 2025, on the opening day of the monsoon session of Parliament. A large part of the day was business as usual for Chairman of Rajya Sabha. For over an hour after Parliament convened, he was present in the Rajya Sabha during which time he allowed Leader of the Opposition Mallikarjun  Kharge to mention the opposition’s demand for a debate on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor. There was a heated exchange of words between Kharge and Leader of the HouseJ.P. Nadda. Chairman of Rajya Sabha chaired a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee (BAC) of the Rajya Sabha at 12:30 pm. At 3:53 pm, the Press Information Bureau issued a press release stating that Chairman of Rajya Sabha would leave for Jaipur the July 22 to meet the newly elected committee members of the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India at the Rambagh Palace. The press release too indicated that until then his resignation was not on the horizon. At 4:07 pm, Chairman of Rajya Sabha informed the Rajya Sabha of the notice he had received seeking the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. “Honourable members, I need to inform you that I have received notice of motion... to constitute a statutory committee for removal of Justice Yashwant Varma, judge of the High Court of Allahabad. It has been received by me today. It is signed by more than 50 members of the Council of States, and thus it meets the numerical requirement for setting in motion a process for removal of a High Court judge”. These words led to his abrupt resignation. This was the last time he spoke in the Rajya Sabha. It all began with the discovery of unaccounted cash at an outhouse attached to Justice Varma's official residence in Delhi during a fire-fighting operation on March 14, 2025, while he was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.  

 

Coincidentally, personnel from world' biggest Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Union Ministry of Home Affairs is deployed in the Rajya Sabha. 

 

Significantly, the Judges Inquiry Committee investigating allegations concerning Justice Varma submitted its report to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla at the Parliament House on May 18, 2026. ​It was presented in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The committee was constituted on August 12, 2025 by the Lok Sabha Speaker to inquire into allegations against High Court judge Justice Varma. The report will be laid before both Houses of Parliament in due course. The Presiding Officer of the Judges Inquiry Committee, Supreme Court Judge Justice Aravind Kumar, along with the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Senior Advocate of the Karnataka High Court B.V. Acharya, presented the Report of the Judges Inquiry Committee to the Speaker.

 

Notably, on March 22, 2025, Supreme Court had issued a press release stating that it had also constituted a three member Committee consisting of Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, and Justice Anu Sivaraman, Judge of the Karnataka High Court, for conducting an inquiry into the allegations against Justice Varma, a sitting Judge of the Delhi High Court. The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court of Delhi was asked not to assign any judicial work to Justice Varma. The press release had annexed the Report submitted by the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court of Delhi, along with the response of Justice Varma, and other documents redacting some portions and names "to maintain confidentiality, etc.". It had also annexed photographs and the video as shared by Commissioner of Police, Delhi with the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. 

The in-house committee of the Supreme had submitted its report to the Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna. After Justice Varma declined the Chief Justice's advice to resign, the report was forwarded to the President and the Prime Minister for further action. Justice Varma pursued legal challenges during the course of the proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition challenging the in-house inquiry and the recommendation for his removal. A subsequent challenge to the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision constituting the statutory inquiry committee was also rejected in early 2026. It is noteworthy that Allahabad High Court website still lists Justice Varma as one of present judges at Allahabad. A list of permanent judges published by the Department of Justice, dated 1 May 2026, places Justice Varma records his date of retirement as January 5, 2031. He had taken an oath as judge of the Allahabad High Court on April 5, 2025. Justice Varma resigned in April 9, 2026, pending the inquiry. Justice Varma submitted his resignation to the President. Justice Varma has denied ownership of the money and any wrongdoing. Unless the report of the Lok Sabha's committee sheds light on the source of the cash to complete the chain of custody of the cash and establishes its relationship with any case which was being heard by Justice Varma as judge of the Delhi Court, it cannot be deemed credible.  

The million dollar question is:Was the cash found at Justice Varma's residence planted to send a warning to all the judges entire judiciary? Has this aspect been examined by the three reports which have submitted? In movies across the world this aspect of planting incriminating material to frame someone became so obvious that the film directors were forced to document this phenomena. 

  

By now fabrication, illegality and unconstitutionality are no more surprising. Why has Lok Sabha been functioning without its Deputy Speaker, the second-highest-ranking authority of the Lok Sabha in violation of Article 93 of the Constitution of India since June 19, 2019. Who has killed the institution of Deputy Speaker of India? Will it be difficult to kill the institution of judges by hundred cuts? Is it not true that amidst the decay of all the institutions, judiciary still has the public image of being better than the executive? Are there vested interests working to undermine the clean image of judiciary?   

 

In Madhukar Anand vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.,(2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed a order dated May 18, 2026, wherein, while dealing with a public interest litigation which assailed certain circulars issued by the State of Bihar relating to old age homes.

 today requested the Patna High Court to take cognizance of alleged translocation of old age home residents in Bihar in violation of the Court's directions safeguarding rights of the elderly.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, while dealing with a public interest litigation which assailed certain circulars issued by the State of Bihar relating to old age homes.

The petitioner's primary contention was that certain old age homes in Bihar were being closed and their residents sought to be shifted across districts. While doing so, apparently the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Dr. Ashwani Kumar v. Union of India were being violated.

AoR Gopal Jha, appearing for petitioner-Madhukar Anand, argued that old age persons are being shifted to Sahara homes and there are even reports of organ trading, over which an FIR has been registered. In this regard however, CJI Kant told him to not go by media reports.

"Don't wait for endless directions here. Please go to High Court. We will request the High Court to immediately examine this issue...we are strengthening your hand", CJI told Jha.

At last, the bench passed the following order:

"We find that according to petitioners, there are 25-30 residents from Muzaffarpur old age home who are likely to be shifted to other districts like Patna, Purnia, Gaya, etc. We find that the issues raised in the petition are primarily based on local factors in Bihar. Such issues can be effectively adjudicated by the jurisdictional HC. We therefore dispose of petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach High Court through a PIL, if so advised. We further request the High Court to take cognizance of the matter and ensure that the directions issued by this Court from time to time are duly complied with."

Notably, during the hearing, the CJI also called out the petitioner for using the term "inmates" for the old age home residents. "Don't use the word inmates please, they are residents", said the CJI.

Justice Anil Kumar Sinha quashes criminal proceedings under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, holds prosecution to be a “counterblast”

In Ankit Kumar Sharma vs. The State of Bihar Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Anil Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court delivered a 16-page long judgement dated May 16, 2026, wherein, he quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC provisions, holding that the prosecution appeared to be a “counterblast” to an earlier dowry harassment complaint filed by one of the accused against her husband and in-laws. 

Justice Sinha concluded:"24. It is well settled principle that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment and private vendetta. The High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.... The learned Special Court has taken cognizance without appreciating the attending circumstances, and in mechanical manner. 27. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion and the attending circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a vexatious, frivolous and malicious complaint has been instituted against the appellants with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance which is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by the wife/appellant no. 4 against her husband at Jaipur. The FIR was lodged by the domestic help/caretaker of the husband of appellant no. 4 and the same is in abuse of the process of Court to harass the appellants and the learned Special Court has taken cognizance without due application of judicial mind. Allowing the prosecution to continue will result in miscarriage of justice to the appellants. 28. In the result, the order taking cognizance dated 27.09.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Saran at Chapra and the entire prosecution arising out of Garhka P.S.Case No. 298 of 2020 against the appellants is hereby quashed."

Justice Sinha drew on the analytical framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of UP (2025) SCC Online SC 1947, becomes highly relevant. The court delineated four steps to determine the veracity of a prayer gor quashing under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which are as follows:-

Step 1. Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

Step 2. Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false?

Step 3. Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant, and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

Step 4. Whether proceedings with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice?

Justice Sinha observed: "If the answer to all the steps is in affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.22. In the present matter, it appears that respondent no. 2 has been set up by the husband and mother-in-law of appellant no. 4 to lodge the present FIR in order to take revenge for lodging FIR at Jaipur by appellant no. 4 against her husband and his family members. The informant has admitted in the FIR that she is domestic help/caretaker of the house of Late father of the husband of appellant no. 4. 23. The motive for instituting the FIR against the appellants appears to be at the behest of landlords/masters of the respondent no. 2, i.e., Manish Kumar and Meera Devi, in whose house the respondent no. 2 resides and work for profit. If attending circumstances, emerging from the record of the case, is taken into account and the FIR is read with due care and circumspection, this Court comes to the conclusion that the criminal prosecution has been lodged in order to wreck vengeance on appellant no. 4 and her entire family for instituting a case under Section 498A of the I.P.C against the masters/landlord of respondent no. 2, including the husband of appellant no. 4. The FIR is a counterblast and tool to harass the appellants by way of launching false and malicious prosecution."

The prosecution case, as per the FIR lodged by the informant, namely Kalawati Devi, was that she resides in the house of late Ramji Singh and she was a caretaker of his garmland and house. In June 2019, Manish Kumar, son of late Ramji Singh, was married with Shalini Sharma/appellant no. 4.

Ankit Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma appellant nos. 1 and 3, who are brothers of Shalini Sharma/appellant no.4, visited the house of late Ramji Singh and abused her, addressing her with her caste name and threatened to throw her belongings out of the house. It was alleged that on June 29, 2020, appellants, along with two unknown persons, arrived in a car from their village Baikuntpur, Vaishali. Upon arrival, Shailendra Sharma and Abhinesh Sharma started hurling caste-based abuses and threatened the informant to vacate the house. The informant requested for some time to make alternative arrangements and upon hearing this, appellant nos. 1 to 3 dragged the informant by her hair out on to the road, assaulted her and tore her saree in order to outrage her modesty. When the informant's husband intervened to save her, he was also assaulted by the appellants. The local people gathered at the spot after hearing noise. In the meanwhile, appellant no. 1 took out pistol, pointed it at the informant’s forehead and threatened her to vacate the house failing which she would face dire consequences.

Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026 amends Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 to increase strength of judges from 33 to 37 judges

Two weeks prior to Supreme Court's commencement of its six-week long Partial Working Days, the President of India has increased the  strength of judges in the Supreme Court from 33 to 37 Judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) by promulgating The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Ordinance, 2026, which has further amended the “Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956. The Ordinance has been promulgated to ensure the Court to “function more efficiently and effectively”. The Ordinance was notified in the Gazette of India on May 16 11 days after the Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister approved the proposal on May 11 for introducing The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament to amend The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 in the upcoming Monsoon session of Parliament. The government invoked Article 123 of the Constitution which empowers the President to legislate by Ordinance. The Ordinance is required to be laid before both Houses within six weeks of their reassembly else it will lapse.

The Court’s working strength is 32 including the Chief Justice of India. There are two vacancies and four judges are retiring this year. 

Article 124 (1) in Constitution of India reads:“There shall be a Supreme Court of India consisting of a Chief Justice of India and, until Parliament by law prescribes a larger number, of not more than seven other Judges…” An act to increase the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was enacted in 1956 vide 2-page long The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act 1956. Section 2 of the Act provided for the maximum number of Judges (excluding the Chief Justice of India) to be 10. The Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was increased to 13 by The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1977. The working strength of the Supreme Court of India was restricted to 15 Judges by the Union Cabinet, excluding the Chief Justice of India, till the end of 1979, when the restriction was withdrawn at the request of the Chief Justice of India. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986 further augmented the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India, excluding the Chief Justice of India, from 17 to 25. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2008 further augmented the Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India from 25 to 30. The Judge strength of the Supreme Court of India was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the Chief Justice of India) by further amending the original act vide The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 2019 with effect from August 9, 2019.

The pendency in the Supreme Court is at a record 92,823 cases as of April 30, 2026. A writ petition filed in 2016 makes a case for constitution of a National Court of Appeal. It is pending with a Constitution Bench. In Krishna Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2017), a 7-Judge Constitution Bench held that the ordinance-making power to be subject of judicial scrutiny.   

While the Union cabinet seemed to be in a tearing hurry to expand the strength of the judges, it has not shown similar swiftness in clearing the names of the judges recommended by the Collegium.  

 

High Court's Vacation Bench to function during May 18-June 11, next Chief Justice to constitute Vacation Bench on June 5, after retirement of 47th Chief Justice

The Annual Vacation of the Patna High Court shall be from May 18 2026-June 11, 2026. The Vacation Bench has been constituted by a notice dated May 13, 2026. The details regarding the Vacation Bench is provided only till June 4, 2026 because Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo retires on June 4. Justice was sworn as 47th chief justice on January 7, 2026 who became judge on July 2, 2014.

The Court shall functions during the Vacation from 8:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and then from 11:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. with a recess of half an hour between 10:30 A.M. to 11:00 A.M. All mentions relating to urgent civil and criminal matters (including Division Bench matters) shall be made before the senior most presiding Judge for being taken up as per assignment during the vacations. The following shall be assignment of roster during vacations subject to further allocations as per request for listing of only writ petitions. 

During the first week [18.05.2026 (Monday) to 21.05.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Rajiv Roy will hear cases pertaining to Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act A.Bail and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.

2. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.  

3. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail. 

4. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail. 

5. Justice Sourendra Pandey will hearing Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail. 

6. Justice Ajit Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS. 

7. Justice Ritesh Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.

8. Justice Praveen Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail. 

9. Justice Ansul will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail.

During the second week [25.05.2026 (Monday) to 28.05.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Ajit Kumar will hear Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Justice Ritesh Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.
3. Justice Ansul will hear Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and R.Bail

During the third week [01.06.2026 (Monday) to 04.06.2026 (Thursday)], the following Vacation Bench will function: 

1. Justice Partha Sarthy will hear Civil & Criminal Application Motion Bench and all urgent Civil & Criminal Matters not assigned to any other Bench and Criminal Matters u/s 483 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act R.Bail and Bail Matters under Juvenile Justice Act.
2. Justice Harish Kumar will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.
3. Justice Dr. Anshuman will hear Criminal Matters u/s 482 BNSS including Criminal Appeal (S.J.) S.C./S.T. Act and A.Bail.