Patna High Court sets aside Trial Court's judgment in a NDPS case from West Champaran

In Vinod Das vs. The State of Bihar, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Khatim Reza set aside the conviction of Vinod Das and Brijesh Das by under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 23(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 by the Trial Court's judgment dated July 22, 2021. By order dated July 26, 2021, both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years for each offence separately, to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh for each offence. The High Court's judgement dated October 4, 2024 recorded several discrepancies in carrying out the investigation which made "the prosecution case highly suspect." The Court was unable to put its "imprimatur on the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellants for the offence."

It all began with Shri Ram Kumar, an officer of the S.S.B. receiving secret information on September 18, 2018 that two persons are coming to India with narcotics in huge quantity and they are likely to cross the border sometimes around 7:30 PM on the same day. This information was communicated to his senior officer, viz., Commandant Rajesh Tikku, who constituted a team to lay a seize which included Shri Ram Kumar as well. Two independent persons were chosen as witnesses in advance. They are Gautam Sah and Ram Janam who have been examined at the trial as prosecution witnesses (PWs 5 and 6). Since there was prior information to Ram Kumar, the testing kit and weighing machine was also carried by the team. Two persons, the appellants were found coming from Nepal side after crossing the border. Both were apprehended. They were found to be in possession of a bag containing 12 packets of narcotics which tested positive for charas, a contraband. Samples were drawn in presence of Rajesh Tikku who, apart from the Commandant of S.S.B., a Gazetted Officer. The samples and the rest of the seized narcotics were sealed; the appellants were arrested and the case was lodged. On the basis of the written report, Bhangaha P.S. Case No. 67 of 2018 dated July 18, 2018 was registered for investigation under Sections 20(c), 22, 23, 24 & 28 of the Act. The investigation was conducted by Paras Kumar, one of the PWs. 

The Court examined the deposition of Shri Ram Kumar (PW-1) on whose report the FIR was lodged. Although he supported the prosecution case, but he admitted that he had not reduced the secret information into writing even after the raid was conducted. He simply informed his superior officer, viz., Commandant/ Rajesh Tikku and proceeded to the place from where the miscreants could be apprehended. The samples were drawn by him in presence of Rajesh Tikku. From his deposition, it became clear that two of the witnesses were chosen from before to be witnesses to the seizure but during the course of trial, both of them, viz., PW-5 and PW-6 have expressed their complete ignorance about any such recovery having been made in their presence. They deposed that they were made to sign on a blank sheet of paper.

In accordance with Section 42 of the Act, it was necessary for PW-1 to have reduced such information into writing within 72 hours for further confirmation that the provisions contained in the Act were followed. The appellants' counsel argued that there was a total violation of Section 42 of the Act and the procedure for sampling. 

The High Court relied on Supreme Court's decisions in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri vs. State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513 and Sajan Abraham vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692, wherein it was held that the officer on receiving the information from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and had to send a copy of it to his superior officer in accordance with Section 42 of the Act. However, if the information is received when the officer is not in the police station, but while he is on the move, either on patrol duty or otherwise or either by mobile phone or other means and the information would call for immediate action and any delay would result in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, then it would not be feasible or practical to go for total compliance of Section 42. In such a situation, he could take action and only thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the superior officer. 

In both these cases, the Court had observed that the compliance with the requirements of Section 42 should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer; but in special circumstances, involving emergent situations, the recording of information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, could be postponed by a reasonable period. The question is one of urgency and experience.

The High Court also drew on the decision of Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein it was held that while total non-compliance with the requirement of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with the Section. Where a police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the officer superior to him at all, then it would be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. However, whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is required to be decided in each case. 

The High Court also referred to Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Jagraj Singh @ Hansa (2016) 11 SCC 687; and Boota Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2021) 19 SCC 606.

The High Court noted another infirmity in the case. In accordance with the Standing Instructions No. 1/88 and 1/89, the samples are required to be drawn before a Gazetted Officer or before an authorised officer. It appears that the samples were drawn in presence of one of the members of the team. Even if one of the members of the team was a Commandant with the SSB and was a Gazetted Officer, the requirements would not be said to be complied with. Because even the officer has not been examined at the trial. The samples were drawn on September 18, 2018 and kept in the Malkhana. There is nothing on record to indicate that the samples as also the left over narcotics were appropriately preserved in the dedicated Malkhana. Beyond the disclosure of the members of the raiding team and the Investigator, there is nothing on record to lend credence to such an assertion of the prosecution. 

The High Court observed that although the samples were drawn on September 18, 2018, but those samples were dispatched to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Muzaffarpur only on January 11, 2019 i.e. after delay of about more than 100 days. Though the parcels were sent by special messenger but it was received in the FSL on January 15, 2019. Given the fact that the samples were not drawn in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the unusual delay in sending those samples to the laboratory, the report of positive test result for the Charas samples tested for Charas "is of no use". The material exhibits produced for the inspection of the Court does not cure the defect. 

The High Court noted that it is surprising that in his cross-examination, PW-4 has claimed to have drawn the samples himself. The samples were drawn by PW-1 at the place of seizure. Even otherwise, there is no entry anywhere in the records of the case of PW-4 having taken out the samples. The High Court found that neither PW-5 nor PW-6, the seizure-list witnesses, who had appended their signature on the proforma of apprehension have supported the prosecution case. These discrepancies in carrying out the investigation makes the prosecution case highly suspect. 

The High Court's judgement authored by Justice Ashutosh Kumar acquitted the appellants of the charges and directed the authorities to release them from the jail.

Supreme Court dismisses petition seeking clearance of all pending cases in Supreme Court, High Courts and District Courts

Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra passed an order refusing to entertain a writ petition instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution of India which was filed by one Madan Gopal Agarwal for justice. The petitioner had sought the clearance of all pending cases before the Supreme Court within 12 months, the High Courts within 18 months and District Courts within 30 months. The Bench dismissed his petition. The petitioner who appeared in person had submitted that twenty countries have implemented a time limit for the disposal of cases. 

Dr. Chandrachud observed, "We are not the American Supreme Court. How many cases does the American Supreme Court deal with in a year? Do you know that? All 17 Benches of the Supreme Court probably deal with more cases in one day than the American Supreme Court deals with in an entire year. Every day I get a log of how many cases have been disposed of. We dispose of in one day more cases than what all the Western courts dispose of in the whole year."

Notably, National Judicial Data Grid reveals that as of October 18, 2024, the Supreme Court has 82,397 cases pending, out of which 27,675 are less than one year old. 

Over 60 lakh cases are pending in the High Courts. Out of which 4.5 lakh cases are less than one year old. In the trial Courts, 4.5 crore cases are pending.  

There are 1,98,905 cases pending in the Patna High Court. Out of which 1,06,074 are civil cases and 92,831 are criminal cases. Out of which total cases filed 130858 cases are more than one year old and of which 74762 are civil cases and 56096 are criminal cases.

Patna High Court refuses bail in PMLA case, Supreme Court to hear it in January 2025

In Shashikant Kumar vs. Union of India and Mannu Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Others, the final order of Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra of Patna High Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner after considering the provisions under Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the gravity of the offence. The order noted the apparent involvement of the petitioners in the alleged concealment, possession and use of the properties acquired out of proceeds of crime. 

The penultimate conclusion of the High Court's order dated April 23, 2024 reads: "....from perusal of records, it appears that there is enough material on the record to show that the petitioners were actively involved in acquisition, disposal and transfer of proceeds of crime in connivance with main accused Sumit Kumar along with other co-accused persons. Further, petitioners aided the main accused Sumit Kumar in laundering the amount of Rs. 31,92,70,129/-fraudulently from the account of CALA-cum-DLAO to the accounts of different persons/entities using various documents and also tried to convert the proceeds of crime into untaintedmovable and immovable properties. It also transpires from the materials on record that the accused-petitioners also purchased agricultural land below the market price using the proceeds of crime. Further from perusal of the records, it appears that the accused-petitioners are involved in hawala business and the allegation against the petitioners are grave and serious in nature. Further, it appears that accused-petitioners have direct involvement in receipt of proceeds of crime and further layering and laundering of proceeds of crime which make him liable for the offence of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA."

Ansul, counsel for Shashikant Kumar, the petitioner had argued that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case by the investigating officer with a view to appease his senior officers on the score of solving the case. He submitted that during investigation, the petitioner was not found involved in the predicate offence and due to the same, the petitioner was not charge-sheeted in the said case, i.e. Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021 and this fact has also been admitted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Complaint petition. The name of this petitioner has transpired in this case only on the basis of disclosure made by the co-accused Sumit Kumar, the then Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Patna. He further submitted that if the confessional statements of co-accused person and petitioner which were recorded by ED are taken as a whole, then it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner was not having knowledge about the predicate offence and the petitioner could not be connected with any process related to the proceeds of crime. Except the statement of the co-accused amounting to confession, there is no cogent material against the petitioner to show his involvement in the alleged offence. He informed the Court that the petitioner is in custody since August 2, 2023 and has no criminal antecedent.

S.D. Sanjay, senior counsel for Mannu Singh, the petitioner argued that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been transpired during investigation by the Enforcement Department (ED) as some money was shown to have been transferred in the account of the petitioner from the account of the District Land Acquisition Officer. He submitted that the petitioner owns the enterprises registered under his mother’s and wife’s names, namely M/s Shakuntala Enterprises in which one Arun Kumar Dubey proposed to deposit Rs. 1.5 crores into the petitioner’s account for a business arrangement, promising a 5% commission. In total, an amount of Rs. 3.05 crores was transferred to the bank accounts of the petitioner and the enterprises registered under his mother’s and wife’s account. Subsequently, as the negotiations failed, the petitioner transferred Rs. 2.65 crores out of total Rs. 3.05 crores to various bank accounts as per instructions of Arun Dubey. The counsel stated that petitioner, at no point of time, was aware of the fact that the money which was transferred to the account of the petitioner, constitutes proceeds of crime. He also submitted that no properties or documents belonging to the petitioner or his enterprises have been confiscated, nor have any records or digital devices of the petitioner or his enterprises been requested/seized for retention under Section 8(3) of the PMLA. He informed the Court that the petitioner is in custody since August 18, 2023 and has no criminal antecedent. He also argued that the petitioner lacks mens rea and is not affiliated with any individual or group involved in the online betting or gaming business, which is the actual source of proceeds of crime. 

He relied on a case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 (specially paragraph 388 thereof). Drawing on this decision of the Supreme Court, he stated that the prosecuting agency falls short of providing a prima-facie satisfactory explanation for arraying the petitioner as one of the accused. He further submitted that to constitute the offence of money laundering, the ED must prove a reasonable basis to believe that the offence has been committed. Reason to believe cannot be mere suspicion. Further referring to judgment reported in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) in which the Court has observed that ‘Bail is a rule and jail is an exception’ even in economic offences. The same has been reiterated in a number of cases thereafter. He also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 as also the case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. The senior counsel submitted that the petitioner satisfies the requirements of triple test as laid down in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement since reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791. He submitted that the petitioner should be granted the privilege of bail.

The High Court was not persuaded by the submission of both the counsels. The petitioners had approached the High Court to seek bail in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) P.S. case No. 03 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/PTZO/06/2021 dated July 16, 2021 instituted for the offences under Section 4 of the PMLA.

Mannu Singh, one of the two petitioners filed a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) in the Supreme Court on May 28, 2024. The respondents are the State of Bihar and the Union of India. It was registered on July 4, 2024 and verified on July 10, 2024. It was listed for hearing on July 15, 2024 before the bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Pankaj Mithal. The ordered issuance of notice. On September 23, 2024, Suryaprakash V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General, the Court granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. On October 18, 2024, the Court ordered that the matter be listed in the 2nd week of January 2025.

Gopalganj native Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai by a gang of Lawrence Bishnoi lodged in Sabramati Central Jail?

Patna born Baba Siddique (66), a native of Gopalganj, Bihar and a former Maharashtra Minister was reportedly killed by three attackers from the gang of Lawrence Bishnoi (31) in Mumbai. Siddique was a close friend of Salman Khan, the renowned actor. After being shot at, Siddique was rushed to Lilavati Hospital, Mumbai where he was declared dead. It is apparent that he was killed for being close to the actor.

Siddique was the MLA in Maharashtra Assembly for three consecutive terms in 1999, 2004 and 2009. He had also served as Minister of State for Food & Civil Supplies and Labour under Congress Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh between 2004 and 2008. Siddique had served as Municipal Corporator earlier for two consecutive terms between 1992 and 1997. On February 8, 2024, Siddique resigned from the primary membership of the Indian National Congress. Prior to that he served as the Chairperson and Senior Vice President of the Mumbai Regional Congress Committee and Parliamentary Board of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee. Siddique later joined the Nationalist Congress Party led by Ajit Pawar on February 12, 2024 which is part of the ruling party alliance in the Maharashtra and the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. His son, Zeeshan (32) is the youngest Maharashtra MLA from Bandra East, Mumbai. 

Gurmail Baljit Singh from Haryana and Dharmaraj Rajesh Kashyap from Uttar Pradesh have been taken into custody in  the case of Siddiqui's murder. The police have named two more suspects, Shivkumar Gautam from Uttar Pradesh, and Mohammad Zeeshan Akhtar. The police have arrested Praveen Lonkar, who is said to have provided logistics support. It has been claimed that his absconding brother Shubham Lonkar was the mastermind behind the shooting. The Mumbai Police have confirmed that the gang led by Lawrence Bishnoi, a law graduate was involved in the murder. Bishnoi is currently lodged at Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad, Gujarat in connection with a ₹ 195-crore drugs case. Mumbai Police has submitted multiple requests for Bishnoi's custody from Sabarmati jail but these requests have been denied due to an order of Union Ministry of Home Affairs preventing transfer of Bishnoi because he faces multiple cases under investigation by both the Gujarat's Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the NIA. In August 2024, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had extended the restrictions on movement of Bishnoi from Sabarmati Central Jail in Ahmedabad for another year. The restrictive order was imposed under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedural Code (CrPC). It was to expire in August 2024. But the restrictive order has now been extended under Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 till August 2025.

Notably, on July 30 2024, Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma had passed an order dismissing a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the first information reports (FIRs) lodged against gangster Lawrence Bishnoi on the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in connection with the interview given to a private TV while being lodged in high-security prison. The SLP was filed on June 11, 2024, verified on July 25, 2024 and registered on July 30, 2024. The respondents were: the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 

The Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Kirti Singh had passed a detailed order on December 21, 2023. The High Court took note of the case of Lawrence Bishnoi's interview while hearing a totally unrelated case. 

The High Court's order reads: "While hearing the matter, it had also come to our notice that a known criminal, namely, Lawrence Bishnoi, who is also a suspect in the murder case of a renowned singer Shubhdeep Singh Sidhu Moosewala, had been interviewed by a News channel and the interviews had been telecast in March, 2023. Lawrence Bishnoi was stated to be in the custody of the Punjab police or judicial custody in the State of Punjab at that time. We were informed that the interviewee was in Bathinda jail when the interview was telecast but the place and time the interview was conducted was not known. A two member High-Powered Committee comprising of Director General, STF and ADGP, Prisons had been constituted in March 2023 to enquire into the incident as it had been viewed seriously by the authorities. The report of the Committee had been placed before us in a sealed cover and a copy of the report was also furnished to the learned amicus curiae. Learned amicus curiae submits that there are several aspects which have not been looked into by the Committee and if the matter is properly investigated or re-examined, the exact time and location of the place where the interviewee was situated when the interviews were conducted can be pinpointed. She also submits that after registration of FIR, these aspects can be looked into by the Special Investigation Team. She stated that the telecast of the interviews is having an adverse impact on youngsters who are getting swayed and it creates wrong impression on the young impressionable minds as the interviews glorifies the criminal life and activities and the interviewee has justified taking law in his own hands for settling personal scores. In fact, a prisoner facing so many criminal cases had access to technology while being in custody and then through that technology has justified his criminal acts as desire of God/destiny. The interviews have been viewed by over 12 million viewers. The amicus curiae further submits that after the telecast of interviews, many more young persons have started writing threatening letters to the film actor targeted in the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi. She further submits that although the fundamental right to speech and expression is important, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions which include public order, decency, morality and incitement to offence. The telecast of the interviews is adversely affecting public order and harmony."

The order reads: "We have also gone through the report which indicates that the Committee has come to the conclusion that it is highly improbable that interviews had taken place either in judicial custody or in the police custody in the State of Punjab. It is apparent that the Committee has not reached a definite conclusion that the interviews were not being conducted in a jail or police custody within the State of Punjab. They have recorded the statements of large number of witnesses in this regard. We find it strange that the Committee took over 8 months to arrive at an inconclusive finding. Nonetheless, the Committee has made a recommendation for registration of two FIRs with regard to two interviews which were conducted in violation of the law. The Committee has recommended that the government may consider registration of two separate FIRs (one each for the respective interview) at a police station having statewide jurisdiction to investigate the matter and take on record relevant evidence/data exercising the powers available under Cr.P.C. If during the course of investigation, the offence(s) relating to any of the two cases or both of them is/are found to have occurred outside the State, the concerned case(s) may be transferred to police station(s) of appropriate jurisdiction. Further, the Committee has also made a recommendation to the Government to remove the URL of the video from the public domain."

The order reads: "The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab submits that they recommended registration of FIR as after registration of FIR the matter can be investigated with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C. for summoning the witnesses to record their statements etc. Learned State counsel submits that the report is being considered by the Government and appropriate action would be taken. She also submits that Lawrence Bishnoi is involved in 71 cases in the State of Punjab and had been convicted in 4 cases which includes offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, 302 IPC, extortions etc. The State itself appears to have taken up the matter with some seriousness as a High-Powered Committee was set up by the State. In the backdrop of the gravity of the situation where a suspect, who is involved in a large number of serious criminal cases, is allowed to conduct an interview in police/judicial custody and it has taken the Committee over eight months to submit an inconclusive report, we, while directing the registration of the FIR would like the matter to be investigated by a Special Investigation Team. Those, who facilitated the interviews need to be brought to book at the earliest."

The High Court observed: "We have gone through the contents of the interviews which indicate that it glorifies crime and criminals....he interviewee is justifying target killings and his criminal activities. He has reiterated and justified threat to a film actor. As in a large number of cases wherein he is involved, trials are underway and attempt to projecting his persona as larger than life could influence the witnesses....The conduct of the interviews is an apparent jail security breach and violation of the Prisons Act. The interviews have been telecast for the last 9 months and are available on public domain. The Committee has recommended that the Government may ask the police to ensure removal of videos pertaining to Interview-I and Interview-II from YouTube/ internet, wherever possible. We would not like to wait for the government to act at its leisure but would direct the removal of the interviews. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Court on its own motion vs. Union of India and others, (CROCP No.2 of 2023) wherein while relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, it had directed the removal/blocking of the offensive content from social media platforms."

It relied on Delhi High Court's decision in the case of ‘X’ vs. Union of India and ors. (Decided on : 20.04.2021),while drawing upon Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India wherein the Court had directed the offending contents to be removed. In the event of intermediary not removing objectionable contents in pursuance to the direction of this Court, it would loose its exemption under Section 79 of the I.T. Act from its liability in cases illustrated therein. Moreover, Rule 3(1)(b)(vii) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provides that, the intermediary shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information which threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence, or prevents investigation of any offence, or is insulting other nation; (emphasis supplied). Furthermore, Rule 3(1)(d) provides that an intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force.

The High Court had issued the following directions:
i) The DGP, Punjab, is directed to immediately register two FIRs with regard to the conduct of two interviews as recommended by the Special Investigation Team in the police station having State-wide jurisdiction.
ii) The investigation of the FIRs shall be carried out by the Special Investigation Team headed by Mr. Prabodh Kumar, IPS, DG, Human Rights Commission. The other members of the SIT would include Dr. S.Rahul, IPS and Ms.Nilambari Vijay Jagadale, DIG, Cyber Crime.
iii) The Head of the SIT would be at liberty to seek assistance of any other officer or of any other kind, on his making a request, the DGP, Punjab shall provide all necessary help and assistance to him. A copy of the report dated 11.12.2023 and the relevant record shall be handed over to the Head of the SIT. The SIT shall conclude the investigation expeditiously and file a status report before this Court within a period of two months.
iv) The DGP, Punjab is further directed:
(a) to get the URLs/weblinks/videos pertaining to both the said interviews removed/blocked/disable/restrict from all social media platforms like Youtube etc. forthwith;
(b) To ensure that the Press channel, where the said interview is hosted, removes the URLs/weblinks/videos from all its news /social media platforms with immediate effect;
(c) In case the said interviews are discovered by police authorities to be existing on any social media platform in future, the same be get removed with immediate effect;
(d) to direct the intermediary to preserve all the information associated relating to the offending content for use in investigation, in line with Rule 3(1) (g) of the 2021 Rules;
(e) To direct the search engines Google Search, Yahoo Search, Microsoft Bing to globally de-index and de-reference from their search results the afore-said interviews and their related contents as identified by its web URL and image URL. 

(f) All the concerned intermediaries be informed that non- compliance with the foregoing directions would make the non-complaint party liable to forfeit the exemption, if any, available to it generally under Section 79 (1) of the I.T.Act and as specified by Rule 7 of 2021 Rules: and shall make such entity and its officers liable for action as mandated by section 85 of the I.T.Act.
(g) The ADGP, Prisons, Punjab shall file a status report with regard to the timelines for installation of jammers, CCTV cameras, nylon mesh, X-ray body scanners etc. for augmentation of jail security.

A subsequent order of the High Court dated September 24, 2024 records that Tanu Bedi, Amicus Curiae submitted that "the interviewee had been kept at the premises of the CIA Staff Kharar for a long period of time and repeated remands had been taken to keep him there which needs to be examined as to whether there was a deliberate attempt to keep him there for extraneous reasons or he was genuinely required for investigation. It has also been brought to our notice by the counsel for State of Punjab that Inspector Shiv Kumar, the then Incharge of the CIA Staff, Kharar had retired in the year 2023. However, the affidavit filed by the ADGP (Prisons) indicates that Inspector Shiv Kumar was Incharge of the CIA Staff Kharar till January, 2024. It is disconcerting to believe that an officer, who had superannuated, had been given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. Learned State counsel prays for time to seek instructions in this regard and file an affidavit of the competent authority as to why he was given extension and posted at CIA Staff Kharar. The State shall also file an affidavit in response to the submission of the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to stay of interviewee at CIA Staff Kharar and as to whether the officers who have been issued show cause notices are currently at posts having public dealing."

 

The order of September 24, 2024 notes that the State counsel filed an affidavit of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Litigation, Bureau of Investigation, Punjab in Court to submit that "show cause notices have been issued to four officers including the then SSP of the District SAS Nagar as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against them. He has also filed an affidavit of the Additional Director General of Police, Prisons, Punjab indicating the progress made in installation of jammers, AI based CCTV cameras, body worn cameras, X-Ray baggage scanners and prison inmate calling system." The order states that the counsel for Union of India, one of the respondents "furnished a copy of the communication issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Additional Solicitor General of India dated 18.09.2024 indicating that ‘no objection certificate’ to the State Government has been accorded vide letter of even number dated 23.08.2024 to the proposal of the Department of Jails, Govt. of Punjab for deployment of jammers in its jails. The said communication is taken on record." But the order records that Arun Pal Singh, ADGP (Prisons), Punjab, while appearing through video conferencing, submitted that "no objection certificate for installation of jammers in the Central Jail, Sri Goindwal Sahib is still pending consideration before the Govt. of India." 

 

Notably, ABP Network news channel has filed a case in the Supreme Court through Advocate Prasanna S. on August 13, 2024 which was verified On September 13, 2024 and registered on September 12, 2024 in the aftermath of High Court's order wherein it took note of the interview of Lawrence Bishnoi in jail by Jagvinder Patial, a ABP News journalist. In December 2023, the High Court had ordered the registration of FIR and probe by an SIT headed by IPS officer Prabodh Kumar into the interview of Bishnoi. The High Court had acted suo motu in the matter concerning the use of mobile phones by inmates within jail premises. On August 30, 2024, the Supreme Court's bench of Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra passed an order saying, "While the second petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation by the Special Investigation Team which has been constituted by the High Court, we direct that pending further orders of this Court, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners." The second petitioner is Patial, the journalist. The case is pending before the Supreme Court. 

 

It is apparent that subsequently, Lawrence Bishnoi was put in Delhi's Tihar Jail. He was lodged there before being handed over to the Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad in April 2023 even as the case being heard in Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court. Gujarat Police had found the role of one Bharat Bhushan alias Bhola Shooter - a member of the Lawrence Bishnoi gang - in the 2021 Morbi drug seizure. Bhushan died while being in jail. Later, National Investigation Agency (NIA) had filled a chargesheet against gangsters Lawrence Bishnoi and Goldy Brar for having links with the banned pro-Khalistan outfit Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) and other similar terrorist groups in one of three terror-criminal nexus cases. The chargesheet named 12 other individuals. NIA had alleged that Bishnoi, along with Canada-based gangster Goldy Brar and has been operating his terror-crime syndicate from jails. Bishnoi is in jail from 2015. Goldy Brar is reported to be hiding in Canada. 

 

Timeline of Crimes by Lawrence Bishnoi (b.1993,  Ferozpur, Punjab)

2010-2012: Several first information reports (FIRs) registered against Lawrence Bishnoi for crimes including an attempt to murder, trespassing, assault, and robbery.

2013: Bishnoi reportedly killed the winning candidate in the Government College elections in Muktsar, Punjab. He shot dead a rival candidate in the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation elections.

2014: Bishnoi engaged in an armed encounter with the Rajasthan Police, leading to his arrest. While being in jail, he allegedly connected with Jaswinder Singh, alias Rocky. The gangster-turned-politician Rocky was shot by gangster Jaipal Bhullar in 2016.

2021: Lawrence Bishnoi was transferred to Tihar Jail in Delhi owing to a case filed against him under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).

May 2022: Sidhu Moosewala Murder. Punjabi singer and Congress leader Sidhu Moosewala was shot dead in May 2022. Lawrence Bishnoi is alleged to have orchestrated his murder.

March 2023: A National investigation agency (NIA) report revealed Bishnoi’s and his associate Goldy Brar link to Pro-Khalistan outfits.

August 2023: Gujarat Anti-Terrorism Squad gained custody of Bishnoi, citing a case of drug smuggling, and he was transferred to a high security ward in Sabarmati jail.

September 2023: Sukha Duneke Murder. In September 2023, Gangster Sukhdool Singh, alias Sukha Duneke, of the Davinder Bambiha gang, was shot dead in Canada. A member of Bishnoi’s gang claimed responsibility for his murder later.

November 2023: Shots Fired at Gippy Grewal’s House. In November 2023, shots were fired at Punjabi actor and singer Gippy Grewal’s residence in Vancouver, Canada. Lawrence Bishnoi was behind this attack claiming that she maintained close contact with Salman Khan and had called for justice following Sidhu Moosewala’s killing.

April 2024: Firing Outside Salman Khan’s House. In April 2024, two gunmen fired shots outside the residence of Bollywood star Salman Khan in Bandra, Mumbai. According to Mumbai Police, the shooters were allegedly hired by the Bishnoi gang to kill him. Salman Khan was targeted due to his 1998 Blackbuck poaching case. 

September 2024: Firing Outside Singer AP Dhillon’s Canada House. Shots were fired outside Canadian rapper and singer AP Dhillon’s house in Canada in September 2024. Accused Rohit Godara, a member of Bishnoi’s gang reportedly took responsibility for the attack.

October 12, 2024: Baba Siddique killed in Mumbai.

October 14, 2024: Canadian police claims that Punjab’s category-A gangster Bishnoi was connected to the murder of pro-Khalistan activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada in June 2023. Punjab Police dossier refers to his connection with Harwinder Rinda, Pakistan-based gangster. In a media statement released in Canada late on October 14, 2024, Brigitte Gauvin, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing, National Security, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, alleged that Lawrence-Goldy Brar gang was connected to the ‘agents of the government of India’. “It (India) is targeting South Asian community but they are specifically targeting pro-Khalistani elements in Canada... What we have seen is, from an RCMP perspective, they use organised crime elements. It has been publically attributed and claimed by one organised crime group in particular — Bishnoi group... We believe that the group is connected to agents of the Government of India," claimed the Canadian statement. 

Previous State Chief Information Commissioners of Bihar failed to publish Annual Report of Bihar Information Commission for more than 6 years

The Report Card on the Performance of Information Commissions in India, 2023-24 brought out by Satark Nagrik Sangathan (SNS) in October 2024 reveals that the State Information Commission (SIC) of Bihar has not published its annual report since 2017-18 i.e. for more than 6 years during the tenure of the previous State Chief Information Commissioners of Bihar, namely Narendra Kumar Sinha, ex-IAS (2020-September 2023) and Ashok Kumar Sinha, ex-IAS (2015-2019). Bihar SIC does not maintain crucial information about the show cause notices were issued to PIOs under the penalty clause of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It imposed penalty in only 59 cases. The total amount of penalty imposed by SIC during July 2023-June 2024) was Rs 13,30,000. 

The details of penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for period 2025-2023 are available at https://sic.bih.nic.in/documents/Penalty/BIC_Penalty_Report_2015to2023.pdf and https://sic.bih.nic.in/documents/Penalty/Penalty_BIC_2020to2023.pdf

The SIC of Bihar returned 11,807 appeals/complaints which is more than what it registered during the same period – 10,548. Out of 10,548 appeals and complaints registered, it disposed of 5,540 appeals and complaints disposed by passing orders during July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024. The Bihar SIC has been functioning with just 3 commissioners(Chief + 2 commissioners) even though it has a backlog of more than 25,101 appeals and complaints. The assessment shows that the estimated waiting time for an appeal/complaint to be disposed by the Bihar SIC is 4 years and 6 months. 

Using data on the backlog of cases in the State Information Commission and its monthly rate of disposal for 2023-2024, the time it would take to dispose an appeal/complaint filed with an Information Commission on July 1, 2024 was computed (assuming appeals and complaints are disposed in a chronological order). For Bihar, the estimated time for disposal would be 4 and a half years.  

On April 4, 2022, Bihar Governor had administered the oath of office to Phool Chandra Choudhary, a retired Bihar judicial officer and Tripurari Sharan, a retired IAS officer as Information Commissioners of the state. Bihar State Information Commission is a statutory body, which was established in June 2006 under Section 15 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. There are three posts of Information Commissioner in addition to the Chief Information Commissioner in the Bihar State Information Commission. The first Chief Information Commissioner of the State was Justice Shashank Kumar Singh (2006-2008). Justice Singh was a retired judge of Patna High Court. He was judge of the High Court during 1990-2005. After that only IAS officers have been deemed qualified for the post. 

Notably,  some 90 cases against the Bihar SIC are pending before the Supreme Court and High Court filed during 2008-2023.

The current Chief Information Commissioner of the State Tripurari Sharan was administered the oath of office as the State Chief Information Commissioner by Bihar Governor on December 28,  2023 but the web link which provides brief profile of the present State Chief Information Commissioner of Bihar is non-functional. The web link which provides brief profile of present State Information Commissioners of Bihar is functional. It provides details about Prakash Kumar, a journalist who has been appointed as one of the State Information Commissioners but it does not provide details about Tripurari Sharan. It is hoped that the new CIC of Bihar will make BIC website fully functional and set matters right in all aspects. 

Action Plan for Arrears Reduction in District Judiciary

The Committee for "Model Case Flow Management Rules for Trial Courts, District Appellate Courts, High Courts and to suggest a Plan for Reduction of Arrears in the High Courts and District Courts" constituted by the Supreme Court of India observed a trend wherein a large number of cases have been pending for long periods, some for over two and even three decades. lt noticed that a substantial number of cases are currently in 'unready' state for various procedural reasons, thereby delaying their resolution. The prevalence of cases that are stayed by higher courts adds another layer of complexity to the challenge of reducing pendency.

Taking note of the fact that several High Courts have case management rules and they periodically issue guidelines/action plans to meet changing needs, an Action Plan has been designed to complement. This Action Plan allows High Courts and district judiciary to tailor the guidelines to their specific circumstances. The scheme is not be construed as interference with the day- to- day functioning of the Trial and District Courts.

The Action Plan for managing and reducing case arrears in district judiciary incorporates the following principles:
a) Prioritization of Long-Standing Cases: Special emphasis on identifying and resolving cases that have been pending for excessively long periods, such as over 10, 20 or 30 years.
b) Accelerating the Progression of Cases to Finalization: This principle emphasizes the urgency of moving cases towards a timely conclusion. It involves not only prioritizing the resolution of long-standing cases, particularly those over I 0, 20 or 30 years old, but also ensuring that newer cases do not age into these categories.
c) Equitable Case Distribution: Ensure a balanced distribution of cases among judge s, taking into consideration the complexity and nature of cases, to prevent overburdening and promote efficient resolution.
d) Effective Handling of Unready & Stayed Cases: lmplement strategies for expediting and managing cases that are unready or are stayed by Higher Courts.
e) Effective Utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution: Encourage the use of mediation and Lok Adalat to resolve disputes with more effective pre-lok Adalat sittings in old cases.
f) Use of Technology: Leverage National Judicial Data Grid and related tools for better case management, including case tracking systems, to enhance efficiency.
g) Managing Undated Cases: Address the issue of 'undated' cases. Implement measures to ensure that cases do not remain without a scheduled date, facilitating their timely progression and resolution.
h) Adequate Human Resources Support to Judicial Officers: Strengthen the district judiciary by providing sufficient ministerial staff support to judicial officers. This includes ensuring that courts have stenographers, and other essential staff who can assist m case management and other administrative duties.
i) Regular Monitoring and Review: Implement a system for the continuous monitoring of case progress and regular review meetings to assess the effectiveness of action plan .
j) Stakeholder Engagement: Involve bar association and agencies to address procedural delays.
k) Responsive Adaptation: Tailor strategies to meet the specific circumstances of each district, allowing for flexibility and adaptation of the action plan to local scenarios.

The High Court, on its administrative side ought to consider offering incentives for the resolution of cases under the action plan. This could include allocating additional units or similar rewards for their successful disposal.

The overall monitoring by the Chief Justice of the High is likely to play a crucial role in the implementation of the 17 page long action plan. Regular reviews and interventions by the Chief Justice can significantly contribute to the progress and effectiveness of the action plan, ensuring that the objectives of reducing case backlogs and expediting the disposal of old cases are met.

College cannot be allowed to function without a Principal: Justice Nani Tangia, Patna High Court

In Dr. Shujaat Ali Khan vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Justice Nani Tangia of Patna High Court has directed "the respondents to take steps for appointment of a regular Principal of Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya in accordance with law immediately, which shall be concluded within two months from today." The order was passed on September 20, 2024. 

Besides the State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, there are six respondents including the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, the Director, Higher Education, Bihar, the Magadh University, Bodh Gaya through its Registrar, the Vice-Chancellor, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, and the Secretary of the Governing Body, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya in the case.

Justice Tangia concluded: "In the event, the respondent authorities fail to appoint a regular Principal of Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya within the period stipulated hereinabove, the petitioner, who was appointed as a Professor-in-charge on 05.03.2023 to act as Administrative-in-charge of the college, shall stand revived." This order is in favour of Dr. Shujaat Ali Khan, the petitioner. 

The Court's order dated September 12, 2024 has recorded that in the absence of appointment of a Principal of a college, the practice adopted was to appoint a Professor-in-charge to act as an administrative head of the college. But the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties were not able to point out any law/rule/regulation/guideline for either appointment of a Principal of a college or appointment of a Professor-in-charge of the college. The counsels promised to apprise the Court under which law/rule/regulation/guideline, the Principal of Mirza Galib College, Gaya can be appointed. The petitioner had contended that neither the Vice-Chancellor nor the Registrar of the Magadh University has the jurisdiction to remove the him from the post of Professor-in-charge.

The petitioner had challenged the letter written to the Secretary, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya by the Registrar, Magadh University, Bodhgaya, whereby the Secretary, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya was directed to restrain the petitioner from working as Professor-in-charge with immediate effect till the outcome of an inquiry report. Prior to this letter the petitioner was working as Professor-in-charge, Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya and was functioning as an administrative head of the college in the absence of the Principal of the college. The High Court was informed that the Mirza Ghalib College, Gaya has been without a regular Principal since 2017. The college is affiliated to Magadh University, Gaya. It is governed by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, various statutes made under it as well as the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The college is stated to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and functioning within the bylaws framed by the Society.

Subsequently, the Court noted that under Section 2(v) Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, the term ‘teacher’ has been defined to include Principal of a college. Section 57(A)(5) of the Act, inter alia, provides that appointment of a teacher in the minority colleges shall be made by the governing body of those colleges with the approval of the Selection Committee constituted by the University. Section 57(B) of the Act provides for constitution of Selection Committee comprising of the members mentioned therein. Notably, Clause 2 of Statute 7, which has been approved by the Chancellor, vide letter No. 1223 G.S.(1) dated 24.04.1978, provides for the pay scale of the Principal of a college as well as the minimum qualification required for appointment of the Principal of a college. The Act and the statutes provides for a mode and manner of appointment of the Principal of a College.

The Court observed that "When there is a law in place for appointment of a Principal of the college as an administrative head, the college cannot be allowed to function through Professor-in-charge to act as an administrative head of the college for such a long period of time, which, in the instant case, is stated to be continuing since 2017." The case was filed on February 6, 2024 and registered on February 17, 2024.

Delhi High Court dismissed application against Nitish Kumar in a plagiarism case related to a text on "Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar"

Justice V. Kameswar Rao of Delhi High Court dismissed the application of Atul Kumar Singh, a political activist against Nitish Kumar, the Chief Minister of Bihar. 

In his order, Justice Rao observed: "I do not see any merit in the present application. The same is dismissed." The Court noted that the onus was on Atun Kumar singh, the plaintiff "to prove that he is the owner of the copyright." The dispute in the suit was whether the defendants have violated the copyright in the original work of the plaintiff. The witness namely Nitish Kumar was defendant no.1 in the case. Justice Rao disposed of this application which was filed by the plaintiff under Order XVI Rule 1 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code (CPC) on Novemver 13, 2019. The plaintiff had prayed for summoning Nitish Kumar as the witness for the next date of hearing i.e. April 12, 2018 or any other earlier date.  According to the plaintiff, the witness was significant and as it was have a material impact in establishing the case of the plaintiff, in order to bring on record further evidence with regard to the violation to authorship rights of the literary work titled as “Special Category Status: A case for Bihar” in which the defendant No.1 is the principal actor. The plaintiff had submitted that even though the witness namely, Nitish Kumar was also defendant No.1, there was no bar under the CPC to examine the opposite party as his own witness, more particularly when the defendant No.1 is included in the list of witnesses.

The counsel for Nitish Kumar opposed it on the ground that the application preferred by the plaintiff is barred by limitation under Order XVI Rule 1 itself, inasmuch as Order XVI Rule 1(4) mandates, application for summoning of witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses produced be obtained, within 5 days from the date of presenting of list of witnesses. He contended the application was an abuse of process inasmuch as Nitish Kumar can be cross-examined by the plaintiff at his evidence stage. He stated that the application was not bona fide and was filed with ulterior motives as the defendant No.1 is the Chief Minister of the State of Bihar and the plaintiff wants to gain publicity.

The issues which were framed in the suit on February 3, 2016 were the following:
i. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the copy right in the work "Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar" and if so, whether the defendants are infringing the copy right of the plaintiff?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages, if so, of what amount?
iii. Whether the work "Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar is a Government publication of the defendant no. 4 and accordingly whether the defendant no. 4 is entitled to relief filed in its counter claim against the plaintiff?

It was siubmitted in the plaint that the plaintiff was a researcher who was pursing his PhD programme in Economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. The plaintiff had registered for his Ph.D in July 2006 after successfully completing his Masters in Arts and M.Phil from the JNU. The topic of the plaintiff’s Ph.D thesis was “Role of State in Economic Transformation: A case study of Contemporary Bihar”. In relation to his thesis the plaintiff started his preliminary round of survey work involving various persons, authorities, organizations including people residing in remote rural areas. He visited many villages in Bihar in the years 2007 and 2008. During this period, the plaintiff by his efforts, skill and labour collected various data, relevant literature, and recorded, observed and analyzed problems, resources, mechanisms etc. related to the dynamics of Bihar’s underdevelopment. After collection of the above work, the plaintiff arranged it in a particular manner with his opinion and observation.

Shaibal Gupta, Member Secreary, Patna-based Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), the defendant No.2 came to know about the plaintiff’s said research work through the plaintiff’s guide/supervisor Dr. Praveen Jha. In November – December 2006 when the plaintiff was in Bihar for his research work, the defendant No.2 after consulting plaintiff’s guide/research supervisor, made a request to the plaintiff that while doing his own survey, if the plaintiff could fill up certain additional forms relating to “Bihar State Land Reform Commission‟s research work”, then in return, the defendant No.2 would take care of the expenses of plaintiff’s field work on actual basis.

In February 2008, the defendant No.2 informed the plaintiff that a PIL is pending before the Patna High Court seeking grant of Special Category Status for the State of Bihar. The defendant No.2 being aware of plaintiff’s research area, suggested to the plaintiff that his personal research could be used for supporting the cause of Bihar and requested the plaintiff to give his study/research material which would be used to support the PIL pending in the Patna High Court. The plaintiff gave “his original work” in soft copy to defendant No.2 in June 2008, with clear direction that the same will be filed only as an annexure to the counter affidavit in the said PIL. That later the plaintiff in his wisdom rearranged certain paragraphs of his work, which would have made the draft more appealing and apt. Thus, within few days, some paragraphs in “the original work of the plaintiff” were rearranged by him, on his personal Laptop. And after rearranging the paragraphs, in “the original work of the plaintiff”, a soft copy was again given to defendant No.2.

In his lawsuit, Atul Kumar Singh had alleged that a book---Special Category Status: A Case for Bihar' - published by Patna-based Asian Development Research Institute (ADRI), through its Member Secretary Shaibal Gupta and Centre for Economic Policy and Public Finance (CEPPF) under ADRI and endorsed by Nitish Kumar, is a plagiarised version of his research work. It was his case on May 14, 2009 when the plaintiff was at Delhi, he was rudely shocked on reading Newspaper reports wherein it was stated that “the original work of the plaintiff” viz. “Special Category Status: A case for Bihar” was being published by ADRI and the Centre for Economic Policy and Public Finance as a book authored by Nitish Kumar, Chief Minister of Bihar. The said report quoted Shri Nitish Kumar’s claim of authoring the book titled “Special Category Status: A case for Bihar”, and read that the same was to be released at a public function at Patna by Lord Meghnad Desai on May 15, 2009. CEPPF has now been renamed as Bihar  Institute of Public Finance and Policy (BIPFP) and made independent of ADRI since December 2022.

Delhi High Court found the reasoning of the plaintiff calling Nitish Kumar, the defendant no.1, as a plaintiff’s witness being a so-called “principal actor” to be unconvincing. It inferred that it was not necessary to summon the defendant no.1 as witness of the plaintiff. Justice Rao observed: "it appears to me that the present application has been made only to put pressure on him as he is being summoned, not in normal course, but as plaintiff witness without cogent reason as such not bona fide nor in the interest of justice.

Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited converts advertisement for Additional Finance Consultant into advertisement for Legal Consultant!

Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited has converted advertisement for Additional Finance Consultant into advertisement for Legal Consultant. It has changed the qualification, experience and age criteria in an exercise of apparent arbitrariness. The advertisement appears to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  It seems Bihar Government has not drawn lessons from the judgement of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh of the Patna High Court in Kapil Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Others.

Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL), a government of Bihar undertaking under Department of General Administration invited application for the post of Additional Finance Consultant through Walk-In-Interview by an advertisement dated October 10, 2024 published in The Times of India, Patna (p.19). The interview was scheduled to be held on October 22, 2024 at BSPHCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna at 3.30 PM on Tuesday. The application was to be addressed to Ram Anugrah Narayan Singh, GM, HR & Admin, BSPHCL. The required qualification and experience were: "CA/ ICWA/ MBA (Finance) from a recognized Institute/University and Minimum experience of 10 years in the field of Finance & Accounts." The emolument is "Consolidated pay amounting to 1,05,000/- (One lakh five thousand) per month." The contract period is "for 3 (three) years initially which may be extended for 01 (one) year at a time, as per requirement of the company and his/her satisfactory job performance." The work and responsibility included "Work related to give advice on the matters related to finance and accounts of BSPHCL & its subsidiary companies. Other Works as entrusted by CMD & GM (HR & Adm.), BSPHCL from time to time." This advertisement was with reference to "Job Contract Notice No. - 12/2024 (Contract)". It stated that "Age should be between 35 to 45 years" as one October 1, 2024. This newspaper advertisement was published vide PR-010425 (B&C) 2024-2025.

Subsequently, The Times of India, Patna (p.21) published a Corrigendum on October 11, 2024 from BSPHCL with reference to "Job Contract Notice No.-11/2024 (Contract)" signed by Ram Anugrah Narayan Singh. The Corrigendum reads: The post mentioned as Additional Finance Consultant in the newspaper notice published vide PR-010426 (B&C) 2024-2025 against notice no.-11/2024 may be read as Legal Consultant." It was published vide PR-010432 (B&C) 2024-2025. The reference the Corrigendum appears incorrect because newspaper advertisement was published vide PR-010425 (B&C) 2024-2025. 

For the post of Legal Consultant, the required qualification and experience are: "LLB (Bachelor of Law) from a recognized Institute/ University. Minimum experience of 20 years in the field of Law. Experience in government department/institutions/ P.S.U will be preferred." The mode of selection is through Walk-in-Interview.

The emolument is mentioned as "Consolidated pay amounting to 90,000/- ( Ninety thousand) per month." It stated that "Age as on 01.10.2024: Should be between 50 to 60 years." The contract period "for 2 (two) years initially which may be extended for 01 (one) year at a time, as per requirement of the company and his/her satisfactory job performance. This contractual engagement may be terminated immediately without giving any prior notice, if performance of the candidate is not found satisfactory by the company." The work and responsibility includes "Works related to giving advice in the -Legal matters, Legal issues related to Projects (Including IT/OT/RDSS/ Pre-paid metres) of BSPHCL and its subsidiary companies. Cyber Crime/Fraud in payment of bills by consumers. Implementation, Monitoring & Observation of Legal work related to BSPHCL & its subsidiary companies. Other works as entrusted by CMD & GM (HR/Adm) of BSPHCL from time to time." The interview is scheduled to be held on October 24, 2024 at BSPHCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Patna at 3.30 PM on Thursday. The application is to be addressed to Ram Anugrah Narayan Singh, GM, HR & Admin, BSPHCL.

High Court, District Judge, Sessions Judge, District Magistrate, Revenue-officers empowered to publish lists of touts: Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023

The Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 has inserted a new Section 45A in the Advocates Act, 1961 to empower every High Court, District Judge, Sessions Judge, District Magistrate, and every Revenue-officer, not being below the rank of a Collector of a district to frame and publish lists of persons who habitually to act as touts. The list may be amended from time to time. No person's name shall be included in any such list until he shall have had an opportunity of showing cause against such inclusion. A copy of every such list shall be kept hung up in every Court to which the same relates. The Court or Judge may, by general or special ordet, exclude from the precincts of the Court any person whose name is included in any such list. Any person who acts as a tout whilst his name is included in any such list shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. 

Section 45 A (7) (d) (i) and (ii) defines "tout". It means a person—who procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner, the employment of the legal practitioner in any legal business; or who proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in any legal business to procure. in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of the legal practitioner in such business or who for the purposes of such procurement frequents the precincts of Civil or Criminal Courts or of revenue-offices, or railway stations. landing stages. lodging places or other places of public resort. 

The Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 has repealed certain provisions of ‘The Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 by incorporating provisions of Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act of 1879 in the Advocates Act.

The repealing of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 from the statutes book, will be a contribution to achieve the goal of repealing the obsolete laws specifically that pertain to British era. It will also be a step towards ease of doing business and ease of living for citizens. It would also help in regulating the legal profession by a single Act i.e., the Advocates Act, 1961.  Notably, the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 has been repealed and the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 has been passed by the Parliament and the assent of the Hon’ble President of India was received on December 8, 2023.

The Union Law Ministry has notified the amendment. The notification states that the Union government has announced September 30, 2024 as the date on which the provisions of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023 will come into force. 

Bihar Govt complying with High Court's directions to rectify "the manifest illegalities" in the selection process of all District Collectorates

Important Notice regarding selection process of office attendant/attendant(Special) was issued on March 31, 2023 in compliance with Patna High Court's order dated December 18, 2019. Important notice regarding selection process of office attendant/attendant(Special) for all district collectorates was issued on April 10, 2023 in compliance of Patna High Court's order dated December 18, 2019. Similar notices were issued on January 15, 2024, January 22, 2024, August 7, 2024, August 30, 2024, September 9, 2024 and October 9, 2024. It is apparent that High Court's order set right a long standing illegal selection process.

The High Court had directed "the respondents, particularly, the Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and the District Magistrate, Gaya to ensure that the process of selection through the advertisement in question is completed by adopting a fair procedure." Notably, General Administration Department, is under the Chief Minister of Bihar. The judgement was delivered on December 18, 2019. It was authored by Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh. Justice Singh is currently the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court. 

The petitioners had approached Patna High Court to allege that the criteria laid down in the advertisement was not followed in preparing the provisional panel list of candidates for appointment against Class-IV posts in Gaya Collectorate under the signature of the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and other members of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. The petition was against nine respondents, namely, 1) the State of Bihar, 2) Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department, Government of Bihar, 3) Commissioner,  Gaya, 4) Collector, Gaya cum Chairman, Selection Committee Group, Gaya, 5) Additional Collector, Gaya, 6) District Development Commissioner, Gaya, 7) District Welfare Officer, Gaya, 8) Additional Collector Establishment, Gaya and 9) Deputy Collector Establishment, Gaya. 

Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh of the High Court has recorded in his judgement in Kapil Kumar vs. the State of Bihar & Others that the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no. 4 to 6 revealed that no process of selection of any nature was adopted. Besides Kapil Kumar, the other petitioners were: Hardeo Prasad, Raj Kishore Prasad, Ramjivan Prasad, Mahendra Prasad, Raju Thakur and Md. Ishteyak. Similar petitions were tagged with it. In Shambhu Prasad vs. the State of Bihar, the other petitioners were: Ajay Kumar, Dhanwanti Kumari and Surendra Kumar Sinha. In Aftab Hussain vs. the State of Bihar, the other petitioners were: Ravindra Kumar, Md. Shamim and  Satish Kumar.

The Court observed that there was nothing in  the submission of the State to suggest that the persons were engaged on daily wage basis after following any fair procedure by giving equal and fair opportunity to others, equally willing to serve as daily wage employees, more in need of employment/ engagement. The Court noted that such engagements, "are more often back door" and "the very process of selection as adopted by the respondents through the advertisement in question to be wholly illegal, arbitrary and patently in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." It added, "no process of selection has at all been adopted which can be said to be fair and impartial, through written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging inter se merit of the candidates."

The Court has recorded in its judgement that "in response to a query made by this Court as to whether any selection process has been undertaken for filling up the said posts from open market giving unemployed youths an opportunity to participate in last few decades, nothing positive has been shown." The query was made in the context of a system having emerged for filling up Class-IV posts in the collectorates on the basis of panel of daily wage workers under the collectorate in the State of Bihar.   

The Court found that "Here is a case where the advertisement does not disclose the number of vacancies/ posts in question and it has just been issued to prepare a panel for filling up the posts. Such exercise renders the statutory rules framed for appointment against such posts under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, meaningless. The Court relied on Supreme Court's decision in Renu and others vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and another reported in (2014)14 SCC 50, to stress the need of disclosing the number of posts available for selection and recruitment.

The Court observed: "The respondents are obliged to follow a fair process of selection in accordance with the statutory rules and constitutional mandate. It is noteworthy that though the rules have been framed for selection and appointment against Class-IV (Group-D) posts, no clear and definite process of selection has been laid down, therein. If no transparent, fair and impartial procedure is adopted for judging the inter se merit of the candidates, who have applied in response to the advertisement made, the eligible candidates cannot get a fair chance to compete, which would be violative of the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution", as held in case of UPSC vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela reported in (2006)2 SCC 482.

It recollected the Supreme Court’s decision in case of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. Nanuram Yadav reported in (2007) 8 SCC 264 wherein the principles to be adopted in the matter of public appointments has been laid down. The principles enunciated in case of M.P. State Coop. Bank Ltd. which have been taken note of with approval by the Supreme Court in case of Renu  are as under: 

“(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/ government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal. Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back door should go through that door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction on misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside.”

In Renu case, the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider power of appointment granted to the Chief Justice of a High Court under Article 229(1) of the Constitution and in no uncertain terms has held that even the said power granted to the Chief Justice is subject to Article 16(1) which guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment. The expression ‘opportunity’ has been explained in case of Renu (supra) as ‘a chance of employment’ and held that what is guaranteed under Article 16(1) is this opportunity of employment ‘equally available to all’. The observations made in case of Renu (supra) in paragraph 27 are significant and is a reminder for all authorities exercising their power and jurisdiction to make appointment against a public post. The Court made the following observations:

“27. To say that the Chief Justice can appoint a person without following the procedure provided under Articles 14 and 16 would lead to an indefinite conclusion that the Chief Justice can dismiss him also without holding any inquiry or following the principles of natural justice/ Rules, etc. for as per Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, power to appoint includes power to remove/ suspend/ dismiss. (Vide Pradyat Kumar Bose v. High Court of Calcutta and Chief Justice of A.P. vs. L.V.A. Dixitulu) But as no employee can be removed without following the procedure prescribed by law or in violation of the terms of his appointment, such a course would not be available to the Chief Justice. Therefore, the natural corollary of this is that the Chief Justice cannot make any appointment in contravention of the statutory rules, which have to be in consonance with the scheme of our Constitution.”

In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489, the Supreme Court remarked that every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness which is the very essence of Rule of Law and bare minimal requirement. The Court noted with approval the observation of Kerala High Court in case of V. Punnan Thomas vs. State of Kerala, reported in AIR 1969 Ker 81: “The Government, is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largesse. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal."

In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Anr. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 1, the Court has held that interaction of Articles 14, 16 and 19 shows that the requirement of reasonableness runs like a golden thread through the entire fabric of fundamental rights and where any Government action, whether it be under the authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making law, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness in public interest, it would be liable to be struck down as invalid.

In Secy. State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi(3), the Supreme Court has held that it is an obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution to ensure that all citizens ‘equally’ have the right to livelihood. 

In I.R. Coelho vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) 2 SCC 1, the Court held that fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the lives of civilized society and has been described as “transcendentally” “inalienable” and “primordial”. 

In Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Court held that the right to livelihood is a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution of India. 

Drawing on these decisions of the Supreme Court and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, Patna High Court has held that the advertisement to the extent that it allows preference under sub-clause (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) and (6) of Clause 7 of the advertisement which dealt with work experience of the aspirants has been "held to be illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are struck down accordingly." The terms of advertisement contemplated preparation of a panel of daily wage employees only by giving them first, second and third preference and those who did not have the opportunity to work as daily wage employee are to be placed at the bottom of the panel, whose merit will depend on respective dates of their birth. The appointments against Class-IV posts, in terms of the scheme, was to be made on the basis of such panel.

The Court's order reads: "In my opinion, holding of written examination of the candidates who have applied against the said advertisement would be a fair procedure for preparation of merit-list, in the absence of any provision in the Rules. This, in my opinion, would ensure transparency in the process of selection. Since the advertisement was issued more than six years ago, the respondents are directed to conclude the process of selection and appointment against such posts, which were available on the date of issuance of advertisement, within a period of three months from today. The respondents are further directed to ensure that a fair process of selection, strictly in accordance with statutory rules and in conformity with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is undertaken on regular basis, after advertising number of post, so that the persons acquiring eligibility after the initiation of one selection process have a chance to seek and participate in subsequent selection processes. This practice of fairness in the process of selection for filling up public posts generates faith in the hearts and minds of the citizen in the governance, laws and the Constitution."

The advertisement No. 01/2013 had referred to the Bihar Group-D (Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 2010 framed by the State of Bihar under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Rules came into effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette on March 29, 2010. 

 

Bihar Govt complies with Supreme Court's judgement against recommendations of State Backward Commission on “Tanti-Tantwa” inclusion in Scheduled Castes list

In compliance with the judgement of the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra in Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar vs. The State of Bihar (2024) related case Ashish Rajak vs. The State of Bihar, Bihar Staff Selection Commission (BSSC) has published an Important Notice Regarding Advt No.- 01/23, Post - Stenographer/Instructor-Stenographer in pursuance of directions dated September 4, 2024 from the General Administration Department under Bihar's Chief Minister. The department also looks after the constitution and working of a number of commissions which have been constituted for ameliorating the condition of Mahadalits, Backward Classes and the Most Backward Classes. These are: Rajya Mahdalit Aayog, Pichda Wargo ke liye Rajya Aayog and Ati Phichda Wargo ke liye Rajya Aayog.

Supreme Court's judgement dated July 15, 2024 reversed the Patna High Court's judgement dismissing cases challenging a Notification dated July 1, 2015, whereby the State Government had passed a resolution based upon consideration of recommendations by the State Backward  Commission which had recommended that in the list of Extremely Backward Classes published under the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, the caste “Tanti-Tantwa” recorded at Serial No.33 be deleted and the said “Tanti-Tantwa” be merged in the Scheduled Castes list with the caste 'Pan/Sawasi' mentioned at Serial No.20 so that they could get benefit of the Scheduled Castes. Supreme Court has quashed the Resolution/Notification dated July 1, 2015. 

 

It is noteworthy that the Union of India fully supported the appellants against the stance of the State government. The Supreme Court's bench set aside the judgement of Chief Justice Rajendra Menon and Justice Sudhir Singh of Patna High Court dated April 3, 2017 on July 15, 2024.  

 

Also read: Supreme Court's bench sets aside the judgement of Patna High Court's chief justice headed division bench

 

High Court takes note of "a slip of pen or a mistake" by Trial Court's judge in a murder case, sets aside error ridden judgement of conviction and sentencing order

In Santosh Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2024), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Jitendra Kumar concluded: "we set aside the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence against the appellants and acquit them of the charges, giving them benefit of doubt. The appellants are in custody. They are directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted or detained in any other case." 

In the case question, one Abhishek Kumar was said to have been murdered at the hands of Santosh Yadav and the Raju Kumar, the appellants and one Dharmendra Yadav on July 2, 2017.The Trial Court examined ten witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and four on behalf of the defence, convicted and sentenced the appellants subsequent to investigation for offences under Sections 302, 386 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and submission of the charge sheet against the appellants.

Section 27 of the Arms Act deals with the Punishment for using arms. Its Section 1 (1) states that whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 1(2) states that whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition in contravention of section 7 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine. Section 1 (3) states that whoever uses any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition or does any act in contravention of section 7 and such use or act results in the death of any other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life, or death and shall also be liable to fine.

Going by the FIR, there was only eye-witness to the occurrence. His statement at the Trial reflects that an attempt has been made to improve upon his initial version. Both he and the deceased were stopped by the appellants and the deceased was shot at by Dharmendra Yadav. He stated before the Trial Court that Dharmendra also threatened the only eye witness that if any attempt is made to save the life of the deceased, he too would be killed. Hearing the sound of firing, the parents and sisters of the only eye witness also arrived. Seeing them come to the P.O., the appellants ran away. With the help of one of the villagers who offered to give his motorcycle, his brother who was still struggling for life was taken to hospital where during the course of treatment he died.  This assertion of the parents and sisters of the only eye witness having come to the P.O. on hearing the sound of firing is an improvement from his initial version in the fardbeyan. His deposition before the Trial Court becomes suspect. It does not appear to be probable that a brother would be allowed to go unscathed even when he had been a witness to the cold-blooded murder of another brother. There was no supervening circumstance for the appellants to have spared the only eye witness, for him to report the matter to the police. If co-convict/Dharmendra had threatened teh only eye witness  and the deceased of dire consequences in case they did not pay up Rs. 50,000/- as ransom money or protection money, the matter ought to have been reported. There is nothing on record to indicate any reason for which the enmity could have been avenged by killing one of the brothers. When confronted with specific question, the eye witness admitted that except for his own family members, no independent person has been brought to the witness-stand to support the prosecution case. The bench also noted that the Police Officer, who scribed the fardbeyan viz., Sandeep Kumar Jha was neither examined nor is there any explanation on record for his non-examination. According to the eye witness the deceased was taken to hospital by a person of the locality, who acted as a samaritan. The Court observed that it was all the more necessary for him to be examined for unraveling the truth. For the reason that the deceased, despite receiving such injury in his neck was still struggling for life and was taken to hospital where treatment was afforded to him. This story does not appear to be correct or at least this version has not been proved at all. The post-mortem report as also the deposition of Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (P.W. 4), who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased concluded that there was one minor/simple injury on the forehead of the deceased just above the eye-brow. The cause of death obviously was held to be hemorrhage and shock because of the injuries. 

The Court reached its conclusion because "It is one of the most improperly contested cases, leaving many loopholes and crevices in the prosecution version." 

The Division Bench observed: "The three appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/24 of the IPC, but very curiously and wrongly have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 973 of 2017/Trial No. 213 of 2022 corresponding to Nathnagar (Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 306 of 2017 vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2023/27.01.2023. Precisely for this reason, while admitting these two appeals, notices were issued to the appellants for enhancement of the sentence."

The Trial Court judge forgot to read about the quantum of punishment under Section 302 of the IPC. Section 302 reads: "Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." The award of 10 years of punishment is contrary to law. The High Court took a lenient view of the Trial judge's blunder and set it right without seeking any explanation from the judge in question although the trial court chose to ignore the law and the verdict of the Supreme Court. In The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Nandu @ Nandua, the bench of Justices M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari has endorsed the view that "once an accused is held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the minimum sentence, which is imposable would be the imprisonment for life and, therefore, any punishment/sentence less than the imprisonment for life shall be contrary to Section 302 of the IPC." Therefore the Trial Court had "committed a very serious error in reducing the sentence". 

In its judgment, the Division Bench observed: "It is really surprising as to how after convicting the appellants, they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years only. It could be a slip of pen or a mistake. On this score alone, we could have set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence and remitted the matter to the Trial Court to write out a fresh sentence. However, that procedure would have taken long and therefore after issuance of notice to the appellants for enhancement of the sentence in case they are found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, directions were issued to the Registry for placing the appeals for final hearing after preparation of the paper book" for final hearing. The judgement was authored by Justice Ashutosh Kumar.   

Initially, the appellant's case was represented by Advocate Manoj Kumar Jha before a a Single Judge Bench. The bench had also detected the blunder of the Trial Court judge. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate and Advocate Jha represented the appellant before the Division Bench.