We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it. For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself: Lord Denning

In Reg. vs. Commr. of Police of the Metropolis, ex p, Blackburn, (1968) 2 QB 150, Justice Denning observed: “Let me say at once that we will never use this jurisdiction as a means to uphold our own dignity nor we will use it to suppress those who speak against us. We do not fear criticism, nor do we resent it.  For there is something far more important at stake. It is no less than freedom of speech itself.” He added that it is the right of every man, in Parliament or out of it, in press or over the broadcast, to make fair comment, even outspoken comment, on matters of public interest. We must rely on our own conduct itself to be its own vindication. 

Lord Denning, was UK's master of rolls. He made this observation on the law of contempt. 

Supreme Court reverses order by Justice Rajiv Roy who had declined extension of bail for non-disclosure of criminal antecedant at the outset

In Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.K Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar passed an order dated May 21, 2026, wherein, it condoned the delay. The order noted:"....it is seen that first modification application was filed to indicate that he has criminal antecedents. 2 . Thereafter another application was filed for extension of period to furnish the bail bonds in the Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36600 of 2025. The High Court in first application only took the fact on record but not granted extension, however, the subsequent application was rejected." Supreme Court concluded: "In our view, after grant of the bail, the High Court may have granted extension after taking the fact of antecedents on record. 3. In this view of the matter, we dispose of this special leave petition with a direction that in furtherance to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail, the bail bonds be furnished now within two weeks from today." 

Prior to this, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2026) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No. 24937 of 2026, Justice Rajiv Roy of Patna High Court passed a 2-page long order dated April 10, 2026. The order reads:"2 . The petitioner was granted relief on 16.09.2025. However, he could not surrender as in the petition it was recorded that he has no criminal antecedent whereas the petitioner was having criminal antecedent. In that background, the earlier modification petition (Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026) was rejected on 30.01.2026. 3. Once again, a fresh modification petition has been filed with following prayer:“for extension of time in the order dated 16.09.2025 vide Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025.” 4. It is again rejected in view of the earlier rejection dated 30.01.2026 with a cost of Rs. 500/- to be deposited with the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee."

Justice Roy's earlier order dated January 30, 2026 reads: "2. The present application has been preferred for
modification in Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 vide an order dated 16.09.2025, the order contains the statement of having no criminal antecedent in paragraph nos. 5 and 7 which is a factual error committed due to our hearing negligence. 3. On 16.09.2025, the Cr. Misc. No. 36600 of 2025 (Ritesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar) was allowed and grounds amongst other was that main allegation is against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be friend and he do not have criminal antecedent. 4. By filing the modification petition, the petitioner now wants correction in paragraph 5 and 7 of the said order and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP, Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh submits that paragraph 3 of the main petition shows that the petitioner do not have criminal antecedent. 6. Considering the aforesaid fact, as recorded, no relief can be granted. 7. The Cr. Misc. No. 954 of 2026 is dismissed." 

Earlier, in Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Mahto @ Ritesh vs. The State of Bihar (2025) Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.36600 of 2025, Patna High Court's Justice Rajiv Roy passed a 3-page long order dated September 16, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"7. The allegation is there, it is mainly against Saurabh, the petitioner has been shown to be the friend, the girl has not stated anything about the sexual assault on her, he is only twenty years of age having no criminal antecedent, FIR is there and he shall be facing the music, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions. 8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge VII-cum-Spl. Court (POCSO), Purnia in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds." 

The petitioner had approached the High Court apprehending his arrest in connection with a Raghuvansh Nagar P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025 for the offence under sections 137(2), 96 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on March 13, 2025 by the informant, Raj Kishore Kumar Dinkar. Earlier, by his order dated June 5, 2025, Justice Partha Sarthy had called for legible photocopy of the case diary and statement of the victim recorded under section 183 BNSS in connection with Raghuvansh Nagar P.S Case no.19 of 2025 from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII-cum-Special Court  (POCSO), Purnea.

As per the prosecution story, the informant had alleged that while his minor daughter was going to coaching center, the named accused persons including the petitioner took her away for marriage purposes. This led to the FIR. As the story unfolds, the victim girl returned and supported the allegation made in the FIR. The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that allegation was that one Saurabh Kumar wanted to marry the girl and only to implicate, his friends were named. The petition was a student having no criminal antecedent and is only twenty years of age. Asha Kumari, the APP had opposed the prayer submitting that the petitioner was also named by the informant as also the girl upon return.

Unregistered Will is not invalid: Supreme Court

In Parvathi Nairthi (D) vs. Laxmi Nairthy (D) 2026 INSC 521, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Vijay Bishnoi passed a 28-page long judgement dated May 21, 202, wherein, it concluded:"....we are of the view that mere non-compliance with Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC may not vitiate the judgment and make it wholly void and may be ignored if there has been substantial compliance with it and the rule should not be interpreted technically to compromise substantial justice. The findings in the decision passed by the First Appellate Court have properly scrutinised the evidence on record, even if the points of consideration are general, and thus, the same does not suffer from any illegality." It added:".... this Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of drew on Court's decision in Maharashtra and Others (2013) 4 SCC 465 has categorically held that an affidavit is not an “evidence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the same can be used as “evidence” only if, for sufficient reasons, the Court passes an order under Order XIX of CPC and thus, the filing of an affidavit cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or Tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. However, in a case where the deponent is available for cross-examination, andopportunity is given to the other side to cross-examine him, the same can be relied upon. In the present case, it is also important to note that those affidavits were filed even prior to the filing of the written statement, and the same has been rightly dealt by all the Courts, which questioned as to how the witnesses came to know about the enquiry regarding the validity of the Will despite no notice having been issued by the Court calling upon them to submit such affidavits. Thus, in view of the same, the affidavits filed by the attesting witnesses to the Will cannot be relied upon."

The judgement reads: "31. The contention of the Appellants that there was an unexplained delay of 7 years in producing the Will after the death of the testator is liable to be rejected. The said contention has been considered by all the Courts, which concurrently held that the Plaintiff had already given a representation before the Tehsildar, Udupi vide notice dated 10.02.1984 to mutate her name, and the said notice was received by the concerned authorities as evidenced by the postal certificate. Although, there was no material which disclosed that the Plaintiff had produced the copy of the Will before the concerned authority, but the said notice itself disclosed all relevant facts, including the execution of the Will in favour of the Plaintiff, without any delay. All the Courts have duly examined the said issue thoroughly and have recorded concurrent findings and thus, we are also in conformity with the same. As regards the contention of the Appellants that they had obtained mutation entries in the year 1984, it is well settled that such mutation entries do not confer title and it is effected merely for fiscal purposes, namely, to enable the State to realize tax from the person whose name is recorded in the revenue records, as held in Balwant Singh And Another v. Daulat Singh (Dead) By LRs. And Others (1997) 7 SCC 137. Also, the contention that the Will is unregistered has no significant bearing on its validity, as this Court in the case of Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Kamta Devi And Others (1953) 1 SCC 295 has clearly held that:-6'. …There is nothing in law which requires the registration of a will and wills are in a majority of cases not registered at all. To draw any inference against the genuineness of the will on the ground of its non-registration appears to us to be wholly unwarranted.'"

There is no need to register a will. People unnecessarily register it thinking that it is necessary to validate the will. The law of will is crystal clear that will is valid without any registration. The law treats unregistered and registered Will at par. 

Sakali Devi is alive, High Court accepts apology of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, SHO, Tajpur Police Station, SP, Samastipur who reported her to be dead

In  Sakali Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice S K Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar passed a 12-page long judgment dated May 12, 2026 dealt with an error in reporting death appellant. The core legal dispute was the erroneous abatement of a criminal appeal based on an incorrect police report stating the appellant, Sakali Devi, had died. The respondent no. 2 was Ashok Kumar Singh, Nikaspur, Tajpur, Distt.- Samastipur.

The application was filed by Sakali Devi to recall the abatement order and restore her appeal, arguing that she was alive. The court ruled to restore the appeal because the report of the appellant's death, which led to the abatement, was factually incorrect. The police officials responsible for the erroneous report admitted their mistake, tendered unconditional apologies, and explained that the error was due to misidentification stemming from incomplete identifying details (lack of husband's name) in the initial inquiry. The court deemed the error to be inadvertent and genuine. The order dated March 13, 2026, which abated Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 377 of 2015, was recalled. The Criminal Appeal was restored to its original file. The unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer was accepted. 

The March 13, 2026 order reads: "Perused Letter No. 155 dated 11.02.2026 of the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur along with the report of S.H.O., Tajpur Police Station, wherein it is indicated that during the enquiry it came to light that the sole appellant, namely Sakli Devi, is dead. 2. In view of the said letter and having regard to Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which corresponds to Section 435 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and inasmuch as no near relative has filed any application seeking leave to continue the appeal, the present Criminal Appeal stands abated and is accordingly disposed of." This order was passed due to misrepresentation by the police officials. 

The suspension order issued against the Station House Officer, Tajpur, was directed to be revoked. The Criminal Miscellaneous application was disposed of. Sakali Devi had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous application seeking to recall an order dated March 13, 2026, which had abated her Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 377 of 2015. The abatement occurred because the police, specifically the SHO of Tajpur Police Station and the Superintendent of Police, Samastipur, had submitted a report erroneously stating that Sakali Devi was dead, misidentifying her with another person of the same name. Sakali Devi presented evidence that she was alive and well, including official documents and a certificate from the Gram Panchayat Mukhiya. Both the Superintendent of Police and the SHO appeared before the court, tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, and admitted the error was inadvertent due to the lack of complete parentage details in the initial request for the appellant's status. The Superintendent of Police had suspended the SHO for this lapse. 

The High Court accepted their apologies, recalled the abatement order and restored the original criminal appeal, and directed the revocation of the SHO's suspension, acknowledging the mistake as genuine. The court also directed its own Joint Registrar (List) to ensure complete appellant details are provided when seeking status reports in the future.

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?