Union Finance minister declines special category status to Bihar in Budget 2025-26

Disregarding Chief Minister Nitish Kumar's demand for grant of Bihar special category status, ahead of Bihar assembly election in November 2025, Nirmala Sitharaman, the Union Finance Minister donned Madubani Sari to refer to Bihar on three occasions in her 57-page long budget speech. All the States including Bihar have again been taken for a ride because the Union government has increased its share in import duties by raising the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) but reduced the Basic Customs Duty (BCD), which is shared with states.

In her eighth speech budget speech, she announced the establishment of a Makhana Board in Bihar. The initiative aims to enhance production, processing, and value addition of Makhana in the state. She said, "A Makhana Board will be established in the state to improve production, processing, value addition, and marketing of makhana. The people engaged in these activities will be organized into FPOs. The Board will provide handholding and training support to makhana farmers and will also work to ensure they receive the benefits of all relevant Government schemes." FPOs refers to Farmer Producer Organizations. FPO is a generic name, which means farmer- producers’ organization incorporated/registered either under Part IXA of Companies Act or under Co-operative Societies Act of the concerned States. A Producer Organisation (PO) is a legal entity formed by primary producers, viz. farmers, milk producers, fishermen, weavers, rural artisans, craftsmen. A PO can be a producer company, a cooperative society or any other legal form which provides for sharing of profits/benefits among the members. FPO is one type of PO where the members are farmers. The ownership of the PO is with its members. It is an organization of the producers, by the producers and for the producers.

The minimum number of membership depends on the legal form of the PO. For example, 10 or more primary producers can incorporate a Producer Company under Section 581(C) of Indian Companies Act 1956 (same provisions are retained in the 2013 Act). Section 465(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 mentions that "the provisions of Part IX A of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to a Producer Company in a manner as if the Companies Act, 1956 has not been repealed until a special Act is enacted for Producer Companies." There is no restriction on the maximum number of membership. The Income derived by a Producer Company through agricultural activities as defined in Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time, is treated as agricultural income and is exempted from taxation.

Producer Organisation can be registered under any of the following legal provisions:
a. Cooperative Societies Act/Autonomous or Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act of the respective State
b. Multi-State Cooperative Society Act, 2002
c. Producer Company under Section 581(C) of Indian Companies Act, 1956, as amended  in 2013
d. Section 25 Company of Indian Companies Act, 1956, as amended as Section 8 in 2013
e. Societies registered under Society Registration Act, 1860
f. Public Trusts registered under Indian Trusts Act, 1882

The PO can undertake the following activities:
a. Procurement of inputs
b. Disseminating market information
c. Dissemination of technology and innovations
d. Facilitating finance for inputs
e. Aggregation and storage of produce
f. Primary processing like drying, cleaning and grading
g. Brand building, Packaging, Labeling and Standardization
h. Quality control
i. Marketing to institutional buyers
j. Participation in commodity exchanges
k. Export

The minister announced that the capacity of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Patna will be expanded as part of a broader initiative to enhance IITs. This includes developing additional infrastructure across five IITs to accommodate 6,500 more students. 

A National Institute of Food Technology, Entrepreneurship, and Management will be set up in Bihar to promote food processing activities. She said,"The institute will provide a strong fillip to food processing activities in the entire Eastern region. This will result in (1) enhanced income for the farmers through value addition to their produce, and (2) skilling, entrepreneurship and employment opportunities for the youth." Besides the expansion of  the Patna airport, the minister announced a brownfield airport in Bihta, Patna. The minister announced financial support for the Western Koshi Canal ERM Project benefiting a large number of farmers cultivating over 50,000 hectares of land in the Mithilanchal region of Bihar.

Bihar government had submitted a 32-page long memorandum to the minister seeking Rs 13,000 crore in central assistance for flood management in North Bihar, additional borrowing limit, 1% GSDP rebate for Bihar until its per capita income reaches the national average. The State had asked for initiation of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana-5.0 to widen and strengthen rural roads, a 250 km Greenfield Corridor from Birpur to Deoghar to promote religious tourism, connecting Nepal’s Pashupatinath to Vaidyanath Dham in Bihar-Jharkhand, construction of a 270 km high-speed corridor from Ladaniya to Nawada and a 135 km Raxaul-Dighwara corridor to enhance regional connectivity and facilitate goods transport to Nepal, establishment of PM Gatishakti Railway University in Jamalpur, Bihta-Aurangabad and Sultanganj-Deoghar railway lines, creation of 10 new Kendriya Vidyalayas and renovation of Vikramshila University. The Union Budget 2024-25 had announced Rs 59,000 crore for road connectivity, power, and flood management in Bihar. One year after the announcement, there is nothing visible on the ground to demonstrate that these announcements in the Union Budget Speech are meaningful. 

Union Budget is the Annual Financial Statement (AFS), as provided under Article 112 of the Constitution of India. It shows the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Government of India for 2025-26 along with estimates for 2024-25 and also actuals for the year 2023-24. The receipts and disbursements are shown under three parts in which Government Accounts are kept viz., (i) The Consolidated Fund of India, (ii) The Contingency Fund of India and (iii) The Public Account of India. The Annual Financial Statement distinguishes the expenditure on revenue account from the expenditure on other accounts, as is mandated in the Constitution of India. The Revenue and the Capital sections together, make the Union Budget. 

The estimates of receipts and expenditure included in the Annual Financial Statement are net of refunds and recoveries respectively. The significance of the Consolidated Fund, the Contingency Fund and the Public Account as well as the distinguishing features of the Revenue and the Capital portions are as under:

The Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) draws its existence from Article 266 of the Constitution. All revenues received by the Government, loans raised by it, and also receipts from recoveries of loans granted by it, together form the Consolidated Fund of India. All expenditure of the Government is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India and no amount can be drawn from the Consolidated Fund without due authorization from the Parliament.

Article 267 of the Constitution authorizes the existence of a Contingency Fund of India which is an imprest placed at the disposal of the President of India to facilitate meeting of urgent unforeseen expenditure by the Government pending authorization from the Parliament. Parliamentary approval for such unforeseen expenditure is obtained, ex-post-facto, and an equivalent amount is drawn from the Consolidated Fund to recoup the Contingency Fund after such ex-post-facto approval. The corpus of the Contingency Fund as authorized by Parliament presently stands at `30,000 crore.

Money held by Government in trust are kept in the Public Account. The Public Account draws its existence from Article 266 of the Constitution of India. Provident Funds, Small Savings collections, receipts of Government set apart for expenditure on specific objects such as road development, primary education, other Reserve/Special Funds etc., are examples of moneys kept in the Public Account. Public Account funds that do not belong to the Government and have to be finally paid back to the persons and authorities, who deposited them, do not require Parliamentary authorization for withdrawals. The approval of the Parliament is obtained when amounts are withdrawn from the Consolidated Fund and kept in the Public Account for expenditure on specific objects (the actual expenditure on the specific object is again submitted for vote of the Parliament for withdrawal from the Public Account for incurring expenditure on the specific objects). 

The Union Budget can be demarcated into the part pertaining to revenue which is for ease of reference termed as Revenue Budget and the part pertaining to Capital which is for ease of reference termed as Capital Budget.

The Revenue Budget consists of the revenue receipts of the Government (Tax revenues and Non-Tax revenues) and the revenue expenditure. Tax revenues comprise proceeds of taxes and other duties levied by the Union. The estimates of revenue receipts shown in the Annual Financial Statement take into account the effect of various taxation proposals made in the Finance Bill. Non-tax receipts of the Government mainly consist of interest and dividend on investments made by the Government, fees and other receipts for services rendered by the Government. Revenue expenditure is for the normal running of Government Departments and for rendering of various services, making interest payments on debt, meeting subsidies, grants in aid, etc. 

Broadly, the expenditure which does not result in creation of assets for the  Government of India, is treated as revenue expenditure. All grants given to the State Governments/Union Territories and other parties are also treated as revenue expenditure in the books of Union Government even though some of the grants may be used for creation of capital assets by Grantee bodies/entities.

Capital receipts and capital payments together constitute the Capital Budget. The capital receipts are loans raised by the Government (these are termed as market loans), borrowings by the Government through the sale of Treasury Bills, the loans received from foreign Governments and bodies, recoveries of loans from State and Union Territory Governments and other parties and miscellaneous capital Receipts etc. Capital payments consist of capital expenditure on acquisition of assets like land, buildings, machinery, equipment, as also investments in shares, etc., and loans and advances granted by the Central Government to the State and the Union Territory Governments, Government companies, Corporations and other parties. 

The estimates of receipts and disbursements in the Annual Financial Statement and of expenditure in the Demands for Grants are shown according to the accounting classification referred to under Article 150 of the Constitution.

Article 113 of the Constitution mandates that the estimates of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of India included in the Annual Financial Statement and required to be voted by the Lok Sabha, be submitted in the form of Demands for Grants. The Demands for Grants are presented to the Lok Sabha along with the Annual Financial Statement. Generally, one Demand for Grant is presented in respect of each Ministry or Department.

At the time of presentation of the Annual Financial Statement before the Parliament, a Finance Bill is also presented in fulfilment of the requirement of Article 110 (1)(a) of the Constitution, detailing the imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of taxes proposed in the Budget. It also contains other provisions relating to Budget that could be classified as Money Bill. A Finance Bill is a Money Bill as defined in Article 110 of the Constitution.

"Bihar hardly has any factories": Economic Survey 2024-25

Drawing on a paper entitled "Where Have All the Factories Gone? Growth and Concentration of Sub-National Manufacturing Activity in India (2019)" by Krishna Ramaswamy and Data from Annual Survey of Industries for FY23, the 482-page long Economic Survey 2024-25 states:"Bihar hardly has any factories".

The Economic Survey claims that consumption patterns and choices of rural households reveals that direct benefit transfers (DBTs) is benefiting women in the target population who are obtaining loans from self-help groups (SHGs) in select districts of Bihar. This claim is based on Artha Global’s Centre for Rapid Insights (CRI)'s survey of approximately 2400 married women between the ages of 25 and 45 in rural areas, who were relatively less financially privileged, in selected districts of Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh in November 2024. The sample population is poorer than the Indian population on average. This demographic group was chosen for study because an increased female labour force participation rate (FLFPR) has been observed among this group. As a popular target for DBTs and cash as well as loans through SHGs from both the Centre and various state governments, a survey of this group allows for an analysis of patterns of consumption due to cash transfers and loans. This claim merits scrutiny in the light of observations by scholars like Jean Dreze who have warned against turning citizens into “guinea-pigs for immature financial technologies such as the Aadhaar Payments Bridge System".

It refers to Bihar’s Mission Daksh aims to provide personalised mentoring for lagging students to achieve grade-level competencies by 2025 in the context of "Peer Teaching: A pathway to achieving foundational literacy and numeracy (FLN)".  It states that school education lays the foundation of a country's education system." The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 stipulates that FLN is critical for education and lifelong learning success. The Department of School Education and Literacy launched the National Mission, “National Initiative for Proficiency in Reading with Understanding and Numeracy (NIPUN Bharat),” in July 2021 to ensure that every child in the country necessarily attains FLN by the end of Grade 3, by 2026-27.24 It covers three years of FLN in preschool and Grades 1, 2 and 3. Tthe education system is deploying innovative pedagogies and teaching methods to ensure that every child achieves FLN.

The Survey mentions Bihar among the States in the Indo-Gangetic Plains which are at a higher risk of climate change impacts.

The review of preliminary unaudited estimates of 27 states including Bihar for the period April - November 202424 corroborates the inference about greater reliance on share in central taxes. The Gross Tax Revenue (GTR) of the union and own tax revenue (OTR) of the states have increased at comparable pace during this period. However, the overall tax revenue position of the state governments appears better
as of November, because of increased tax devolution by the union. Among the state-specific taxes, stamps and registration, sales tax, state excise duties, and other taxes and duties registered positive growth, whereas land revenue declined, for states as a collective. It does not explain the reason for fall decline in the land revenue.  

The central government and 29 states/UTs have pre-published their draft rules under the four Labour Codes. Some of the remaining seven states/UTs have pre-published their draft rules for one or more Labour Codes.

Bihar is among the 14 States which has increased the threshold of the number of workers from 100 to 300 for prior approval of appropriate government before retrenchment/ layoff/ closure of establishments in factory/plantation/ mining sector. 

Bihar is one of the six States which has notified Fixed Term Employment under the existing Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. 

Bihar is one of the 12 States which has increased the threshold from 20 workers to 50 workers for applicability of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.  

Two children norm contrary to Articles 14 and 16 only in a specific case!: High Court

In Sunita Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan (2025), Rajasthan High Court allowed the petition of a widow who sought appointment to the post of School Lecturer and held that rejection of her candidature on the sole ground of having more than two children is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality and non-discrimination.

Justice Sameer Jain observed:“This Court as representative of the Sovereign as parens patriae has adopted the same standard that a reasonable and responsible parent would do.”

The petitioner, a woman candidate, in response to the advertisement of 2015 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment to the position of School Lecturer had submitted her application under SC- Widow category. The petitioner passed the examination with merit. 

On scrutiny of her application form, the RPSC concluded that her candidature was ineligible because of having more than two surviving children on or after June 1, 2002.

The appellant approached the High Court.

The petitioner was the sole bread-earner of her family, with the responsibility of supporting four children, including one with a disability.

The Court recorded:“Her status as a member of the Scheduled Caste (SC) community further highlights the systemic barriers she faces, warranting judicial intervention to address her unique hardship. The petitioner’s circumstances exemplify the need for equitable and inclusive consideration in public employment opportunities."

The judgement reads: “Exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court considers it imperative to depart from rigid procedural adherence in the interest of justice. Article 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination on various grounds, including caste and sex. The petitioner’s exclusion based on procedural requirements, despite her significant socioeconomic challenges, undermines these constitutional guarantees and necessitates judicial redress.”

The Court pointed out:, “The rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the sole ground of having more than two children is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which ensure equality and non-discrimination. The petitioner’s marginalized status and meritorious standing under the widow category demand equal treatment under the law. Denying her claim disregards the principles of fairness and perpetuates systemic inequities, especially for women from vulnerable communities.”

In its conclusion, the Court clarified:“Notwithstanding anything above, it is made clear that the instant judgment is passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant matter and henceforth, ought not to be treated as a precedent." It is apparent that  the conclusion is bizarre because it implies that the two children norm is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 only in this specific case!

Also read: Notorious Verdict? Children as Disqualification: After Haryana law on contesting panchayat elections, Rajasthan law for jobs

Elected representative changing political party ought to resign and seek people's mandate again

In K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala (2025), the High Court in its 12-page long observed: "The representatives elected in a democratic manner represent the will of the people elected. It includes the will of the political affiliation of the people who elected the representative. In other words, it is a bond between the people and the elected representative. If the elected representative wants to change his policy or political affiliation, he has to resign and face the mandate of the people again. That is the moral side of democracy. Otherwise, it will be a unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative. It will be an insult to the will of the people. But the people can show their will to such a representative in the next election either by supporting him or by defeating him. That is the beauty of democracy. But an elected representative going against the will of the people should not be confronted physically by attacking that representative. The people can show their power through their ballot papers."

The Court also observed:"the proper manner by which a person is to be defeated in a democratic set-up is through the ballot papers and not by using weapons or by committing vandalism. In this case, both sides are trying to take the law into their own hands instead of approaching the people in a democratic manner." The order of January 29, 2025 was authored by Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan. 

21,000 appeals pending in Patna High Court, Supreme Court seeks ad hoc judges

In Lok Prahari vs. Union of India (2025), Supreme Court's 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justices B.R. Gavai, and Surya Kant modified the 74-page long judgement dated April 20, 2021, by a 3-judge bench of Chief Justice of India S. A. Bobde and Justices S. K. Kaul, and Surya Kant which had activated the dormant provision under Article 224A of the Constitution of India for the appointment of ad hoc Judges to deal with the unprecedented situation arising from the backlog of cases pending in the High Courts in the face of vacancies of almost 40 per cent.  

Chief Justice Khanna bench observed that wherever case pendency exceeds 10% of the sanctioned strength in a High Court, the proposal for appointing ad-hoc judges can be adopted. He clarified that the government would have the discretion to determine the required number of such judges, ensuring that their appointments do not exceed 10% of the total sanctioned strength of the respective High Court. The order reads: "We are inclined to keep in abeyance the observations in paragraphs 43, 54, and 55 of the order dated April 28, 2021, which required that ad-hoc judge appointments should not be made unless 80% of the sanctioned strength is already working or recommended," It underlined that the requirement that vacancies should not exceed 20% would also be kept in abeyance.

It directed that each High Court may appoint 2-5 ad-hoc judges, ensuring that the number does not exceed 10% of the sanctioned strength. These ad-hoc judges will be part of benches presided over by sitting High Court judges and will primarily handle pending criminal appeals.

Chapter V of Part VI of the Constitution of India commencing from Article 214 upto Article 231 relates to the High Courts in the States. Article 217 provides for the appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of the High Court, wherein the current age of retirement is 62 years. We may say that broadly, it is amongst the youngest ages of retirement of judges of the apex Court of a state in comparison with other democracies of the world.

Article 224 deals with the appointment of additional and acting judges. The objective as set out in the Article is to take care of any temporary increase in business of the High Court, or by reason of arrears of work therein. The appointment of an additional judge duly qualified to be the judge of a High Court has to be for a period not exceeding two years, or as the President may specify. The ground reality however, remains that while determining the strength of different High Courts, the practice that has been adopted is that about 25% of the strength consists of additional Judges. 

Article 224A which reads:

"224A. Appointment of retired Judges at sittings of High Courts-Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Chief Justice of a High Court for any State, may with the previous consent of the President, request any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court to sit and act as a Judge of the High Court for that State, and every such person so requested shall, while so sitting and acting, be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court: Provided that nothing in this article shall be deemed to require any such person as aforesaid to sit and act as a Judge of that High Court unless he consents so to do." 

This Article begins with a non-obstante clause and was placed so that a request can be made to any person who has held the office of a Judge of that Court or of any other High Court, to sit and act as a judge of the High Court for the state. The second aspect is that while sitting and acting, such a judge would be entitled to such allowances as the President may by order determine and have all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of the High Court judge; but for all other purposes shall not be deemed to be a High Court judge. The proviso stipulates that consent has to be obtained from the judge concerned. 

The Court relied on the 5-judge decision in In Krishan Gopal vs. Shri Prakash Chandra & Ors (1974) wherein the Court ruled on the issue of whether a person sitting and acting as a Judge of the High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution has the jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Debate arose in the context of a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court who was sitting and acting as a judge of that Court under Article 224A of the Constitution, and his appointment was to last for a period of one year or till the disposal of elections petitions entrusted to him, whichever was earlier. In that context it was observed that if a person appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution was not considered to be a judge of the High Court for the purpose of jurisdiction, powers and privileges, the question of appointing such a person would never arise. 

In Justice P Venugopal vs. Union of India and Ors. (2003), it was opined that an ad hoc judge does not become a part of the High Court. There is no question of computing his pension for the period he id appointed as an ad hoc judge. 

In Union of India vs. Sankalchand Himatlal Sheth (1977), it was observed that the reason for insisting on consent was that a retired Judge cannot be compelled to work as an ad hoc judge against his consent. This is because he ceases to be a judge of the High Court on demitting office at the prescribed age and is not bound by the conditions of service.

According to National Judicial Data Grid (NJD), more than 62,000 cases are pending before High Courts as of January 25, 2025, including over 18 lakh criminal cases and more than 44,000 civil cases.

Regarding the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for such appointments, Chief Justice Khanna bench made it clear that the existing MoP would be followed. It kept paragraph 61 of the April 28, 2021 order in abeyance.

On January 21, 2025, the Court had acknowledged that the current stipulation requiring at least 80% of sanctioned judicial strength in High Courts to consider appointing ad hoc judges is impractical in states with high pendency. The bench proposed to modify the threshold to allow for ad hoc judges specifically to address criminal appeals. The bench recorded that Pana High Court has 21,000 appeals.

It observed: "We will have to therefore, partly modify or put in away certain Lok Prahari part, that untill and unless you have 80% of the sanction strength in the working, ad-hoc judges cannot be appointed. We will have to make this change, that the ad-hoc judges will be sitting with a condition that they will be sitting with benches which are dealing with criminal appeals, with one sitting judge as the presiding judge. So, to that extent, we require that moderation. We will have to have that. That's the reason why we have listed".

The Court has underlined: "The judgment itself says it is a continuous mandamus. It also says that it is a living constitution we will have to modify. " Chief Justice Khanna bench advised that ad hoc judges be paired with sitting judges, with the latter presiding over benches. 

Post retirement pensions cannot be withheld because of pending enquiry proceedings

In total violation of the principles of natural justice and also absolute disregard of the principles governing domestic enquiries; enjoined upon in the Bihar (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as also the Bihar Pension Rules, after retirement, a lady teacher is yet to get her pension although in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court and Patna High Court, it has been held that pensions cannot be withheld because of pending enquiry proceedings. 

The 29-page long judgement dated April 15, 2024 by Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court set aside the  judgment dated September 26, 2023 order of withholding 100% pension, gratuity and earned leave encashment. The appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till her superannuation. The appellant would also be entitled to pension considering her service to be continuous, subject only to any other proceeding taken. The directions for payment and interest shall be as per direction in Kamini Kumari (supra). The appellant shall also be entitled to be paid Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost.

The six petitioners namely, Neelam Kumari, Shashi Kala, Abha Rani, Ranju Bala Sharan, Bibha Rani and Subhra Rani had filed the writ against the State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Patna, Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Patna and Director (Administration)- cum -Additional Secretary, Education Department, Patna.

The judgement of the High Court reads: "The present appeals are similar to that disposed of in LPA No. 1219 of 2023 (Kamini Kumari & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. & its analogous cases). The writ petitions from which the appeals arise, were cases in which the challenge was to the domestic enquiry proceedings initiated against teachers appointed long back, on allegations of their appointments having been made irregularly. The enquiries concluded with termination, some of which orders were once successfully challenged before this Court and again the very same consequence was visited on the teachers who were still in service; after a de novo proceedings as permitted by this Court. As against those who had retired; 100% of their pensions were withheld on the conclusion of enquiry proceedings. The domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated on the ground that the teachers who were the petitioners and the appellants, were appointed irregularly between 1980 to 1990.

In the earlier batch of writ petitions, it was noticed that in the year 1998 by reason of an order dated 18.12.1998 passed in a Public Interest Litigation; CWJC No. 9847 of 1998 (Brajesh Kumar Sinha and Ors Vs. the State of Bihar and Anr), there was a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out investigation into the alleged irregular appointments.

The CBI submitted its report on 09.11.2004 before the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar; but no FIR was registered or any criminal proceedings were initiated. The Government slept over the matter despite receipt of the CBI report. In the year 2016, another PIL was filed numbered as CWJC No. 10002 of 2016 (Kaushal Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors) in which the State was called upon to apprise Patna High Court as to what transpired after the CBI enquiry report was filed. This led to a spate of domestic enquiry proceedings which were carried out in total violation of the principles of natural justice and also absolute disregard of the principles governing domestic enquiries; as enjoined upon in the Bihar (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules as also the Bihar Pension Rules.

A number of writ petitions were filed and a group of them in Shanti Kumari Vs. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 17904 of 2016) were disposed of on 17.01.2017 finding that the petitioners, therein, who were teachers were deprived of a reasonable opportunity to canvass their respective cases, produce relevant documents and also the binding authorities relating to domestic enquiries. The Writ Court set aside the domestic enquiry proceedings and the termination orders passed, but left liberty to the State to proceed de novo with the enquiry proceedings.

It is based on such liberty reserved that the proceedings were taken against a number of teachers, some of whom had retired by the time the proceedings were initiated.

Others who were reinstated in service by reason of the earlier writ proceedings having set aside the termination orders, were also proceeded with. Some of the writ petitions were filed against the proceedings initiated, others against the termination orders and many against the withholding of pension after retirement; which withholding was also of 100 per cent of applicable pension.

Patna High Court in Kamini Kumari (supra) found that the proceedings against retired employees were against Rule-43 (b) and Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs Md. Idrish Ansari; 1995 Supp 3 SCC 6.

Following the declaration in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra), it was held that the right of withholding of pension or any part of it permanently or for a specified period by virtue of Sub clause-(i) and (ii) of Clause-(a) of the proviso to Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules had to necessarily satisfy two requirements. One, that it can be instituted only with the sanction of the State Government and second, it can only be with respect to an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceedings. All the proceedings which were taken up against the retired employees were with respect to the irregular appointments made between 1980 to 1990 far beyond the four-year period provided. There was also no sanction obtained from the State Government in any of the cases.

7. Reliance was also placed on Rule-139 which Rule was also interpreted in Md. Idrish Ansari (supra). Rule-139 of the Bihar Pension Rules...

A order of April 28, 2022 by Justice Sanjeev Prakash reads: "Heard the parties. The case is being taken-up from defect side. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove all the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today. Considering it that this matter is covered by the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5489 of 2020 (Suresh Ram Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and connected matters reported in 2022 (2) B.L.J., 381 and the judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 34 of 2022 (Minakshi @ Sushre Minakshi & Anr. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), this petition is disposed of with the above terms. If an appeal is preferred before the District Appellate Authority/State Appellate Authority the same shall be taken-up at the earliest and preferably decided within a period of three months."

The order of September 26, 2023 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "No one appears for the petitioner. Two weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner to remove defects failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. If the defects stand removed within the aforesaid period, list this case on 19.10.2023."

The order of March 13, 2024 by Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan reads: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. From the perusal of the Office notes, it appears that the present writ application is already dismissed on 10.10.2023 due to non-compliance of order dated 26.09.2023. As such, no order needs to be passed."

The order of November 20, 2024 by Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh reads: "Learned counsel for the respondent/s is directed to file counter affidavit within four weeks. Reply, if any, must be filed within two weeks.  Thereafter, list this case on 18.12.2024."

A Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1369 of 2024 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3871 of 2022 was filed on April  18, 2024 in the Court of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad . It was registered on April 20, 2024.

The order of August 13, 2024 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. Four weeks’ time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to remove the defects, failing which this application shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. If the defects stand removed within the aforesaid period, list this case on 20.09.2024 under appropriate heading. "

The order of October 5, 2024 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad reads: "This application has been filed for restoration of CWJC No.3871 of 2022 which stood dismissed for default on 10.10.2023. Having regard to the submissions that there was a bonafide mistake on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner which resulted in dismissal of the case in default, this Court directs restoration of CWJC No.3871 of 2022 to its original file subject to the compliance of the peremptory order dated 26.09.2023 passed in the said case. This application stands allowed."

    

    

India ranked 61st among Digital Evolution States

Digital Intelligence Index provides insights across two scorecards: Digital Evolution and Digital Trust.

It is based on research from over twelve years (2008-2019), the third edition of Digital Evolution builds on our prior editions (2014 and 2017) to represent a data-driven evaluation of the progression of the global digital economy. It measures 90 economies. It combines 160 indicators into four key drivers: Supply Conditions, Demand Conditions, Institutional Environment, and Innovation and Change. 

The Fletcher School at Tufts University, in partnership with Mastercard has presented the Digital Intelligence Index. The current index encompasses the third edition of the Digital Evolution scorecard. 

Indian media has misreported about India's position in the Digital Intelligence Index. It did not accurately report that India is at the 61st  position among the Digital Evolution States, out of 90 ranked States, 4th among Digital Evolution Momentum States. In terms of Digital Trust Environment and Digital Trust Experience, India is ranked 32 out of 90 ranked States. 

The 78 page long report entitled "DIGITAL IN THE TIME OF COVID:Trust in the Digital Economy and Its Evolution Across 90 Economies as the Planet Paused for a Pandemic" is dated December 2020. It available at:

https://digitalplanet.tufts.edu/digital-intelligence-index-2/ 

Acquittal of murder accused Darshan Singh, Rani Kaur, improvement of witness statement under Section 161 insignificant

In Darshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab (2024), a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court held that prosecution cannot seek to prove a fact during trial through a witness which such witness had not stated to police during investigation – Evidence of that witness regarding the said improved fact is of no significance. [Para 26].

The case before the Court arose from the judgment and order dated July 23, 2009 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRLA No.593-DB of 2000. 

The deceased, Amrik Kaur was married to Darshan Singh, the appellant, some time in 1988. The marriage was arranged through Melo Kaur (PW-3), the cousin sister of the deceased. The prosecution alleges that their marital relationship was strained owing largely to the fact that Darshan Singh had developed an illicit partnership with Rani Kaur (A2). Several relatives had prevailed on the appellant to put an end to his relationship with Rani Kaur, but to no avail. The illicit relationship between Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur is said to have lasted for at least three years before the fateful day. It is the case of the prosecution that on the intervening night of  May 18, 1999 and May 19, 1999, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur, with the motive of eliminating the deceased, administered poison and intentionally caused the death of Amrik Kaur.

On these allegations, Darshan Singh and Rani Kaur were prosecuted for charges under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.

The Trial Court had concluded that it was a case of homicide and not suicide. It has found that the appellant had a strong motive to commit the murder of his wife. It further held that the appellant and Rani Kaur were present in the house on the intervening night of May 18, 1999 and May 19, 1999 and therefore, the burden lay on them to explain as to ‘how the body of Amrik Kaur who was alive on the night of May 18, 1999 turned into a corpse’ the next morning. The Court completely disbelieved the theory of suicide sought to be advanced on behalf of appellant. It was noted that merely because there were no injuries on the body of the deceased, that by itself would not obviate the possibility of forceful administration of the poisonous substance. On the basis of the above circumstances taken together, the Trial Court held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and Rani Kaur.

In appeal, the High Court had agreed with the findings of the Trial Court in so far as the appellant is concerned and had acquitted Rani Kaur by extending her the benefit of doubt. It has found that there is no other evidence except the testimony of PW3 and PW4, to prove the presence of Rani Kaur on the intervening night of May 18, 1999 and May 19, 1999 at the appellant’s house.

The High Court had upheld the order of conviction and sentence, as against Darshan Singh (the appellant) and has allowed the appeal of Rani Kaur (Accused No. 2), thereby acquitting her of all charges. The State of Punjab had not challenged the acquittal of Rani Kaur by filing any special leave petition. Darshan Singh had sought special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court and leave came to be granted by order dated January 22, 2010.

In its January 2024 judgement, the Supreme Court concluded: There cannot be a gap in the chain of circumstances. When the conviction is to be based on circumstantial evidence solely, then there should not be any snap in the chain of circumstances. If there is a snap in the chain, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. If some of the circumstances in the chain can be explained by any other reasonable hypothesis, then also the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. [See: Bhimsingh Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 4 SCC 281.] Therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the concurrent findings of conviction." The appeal was allowed. 

Supreme Court disapproves of prolonged verification process of Bar Council of India since 2015

In Bar Council of India vs. Poonam Ashok Goud (2025), a 3-judge bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justices Sanjay Kumar and K V Viswanathan, disapproved of the prolonged verification process initiated by the Bar Council of India (BCI) since 2015. It's order of January 23, 2025 reads: "The Bar Council of India shall file an updated status report,indicating the States where the verification of the Advocates enrolled and on the rolls of the State Bar Councils is still pending.  The said status report will be filed within eight weeks from today with a copy to the opposite side." The Court has re-listed the in the week commencing July 21,2025.

The Supreme Court had issued notice on January, 20, 2024 in a Transfer Petitions (Civil). The case arose from decisions of Delhi High Court in WP(C)-15576-2022, and WP(C)-14780-2023, Andhra Pradesh High Court in WPSR-50755-2023 and WPSR-51695-2023 and Uttarakhand High Court in WPMS-2136-2023. 

On February, 9, 20244, BCI's case was tagged with the transfer petitions. In none of the Court's orders of there is any specific reference to fake degree of Advocates. 

The case was filed on December 29, 2023. It was registered on January 12, 2024 and verified on January 16, 2024. BCI has filed the case against eleven respondents namely, Poonam Ashok Goud, Bar Council of Telangana, Awanish Kumar, WBar Council of Delhi, Shaik Umar Basha, Union of India represented by Secretary Government of India, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Arun Uniyal, 9 Bar Council of State of Uttarakhand, State of Uttarakhand and Yenumala Suresh Babu

ED raids in Patna Railway Claims Tribunal scam case

A press release dated January 23, 2025, Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Patna states that ED, Patna in connection with money laundering case related to Patna Railway Claims Tribunal scam carried out search operations at four locations related to Judge R.K. Mittal and other involved advocates in Patna, Nalanda and Mangalore. It has arrested three advocates- Bidyanand Singh, Parmanand Sinha, and Vijay Kumar on January 22, 2025 for offense of money laundering related to this scam under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The accused were produced before the Special Court (PMLA). They have been sent to judicial custody. Rahul Navin is the Director of Enforcement and Yaduraj Singh is the Joint Director Patna Zonal Office.     

ED initiated investigation on the basis of FIRs registered by CBI, ACB, Patna regarding mass scale irregularity/ criminality in the death claim cases filed, processed and decided at Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna (RCT) against unknown public servants of Railway, Bidyanand Singh, Parmanand Singh, Vijay Kumar and others under various sections of IPC, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 

According to the FIRs, in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, in accidental death claim cases, only a part of the decreed amount, actually awarded to the claimants, was received by the claimants and major chunk was siphoned off by the conspirators.

ED investigation revealed that Advocate Bidyanand Singh and his team of advocates including Advocate Parmanand Sinha and Advocate Vijay Kumar dealt around 900 cases where decrees/execution orders were issued by Judge R.K. Mittal wherein approximately Rs. 50 Crore compensation was awarded to the claimants. 

It is revealed that Advocate Bidyanand Singh and his team of advocates opened and operated the bank accounts of claimants without their knowledge and using the signatures and thumb impressions of these claimants transferred the claim amount received from the railways to their own accounts or withdrawn in cash. Later, they gave some amount to the claimants as compensation as per their will. The searches resulted in identification of assets acquired by the advocates and judge in their names and recovery of physical and digital records including signed blank bank cheques and signed blank papers by the claimants. Further investigation is under progress.

The Directorate originated on May 1, 1956, when an ‘Enforcement Unit’ was formed in the Department of Economic Affairs for handling Exchange Control Laws violations under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1947. In 1957, this Unit was renamed as ‘Enforcement Directorate’. In 1960, the administrative control of the Directorate was transferred from the Department of Economic Affairs to the Department of Revenue. FERA, 47 was repealed and replaced by FERA, 1973. For four years (1973 – 1977), the Directorate was under the administrative jurisdiction of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms. FERA, 1973 was repealed and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) came into operation on June 1, 2000. The PMLA was enacted in 2002 and the ED was entrusted with its enforcement from July 1, 2005. The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEOA) has been enacted and ED is entrusted with its enforcement with effect from April 21, 2018. This enactments have been made under the International Anti Money Laundering regime. 

Saran parliamentary election violence case reaches Supreme Court

On January 20, 2025, in Nagendra Ray vs. The State of Bihar and Kamakhya Singh @ Deepu Singh, the Supreme Court's bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan granted permission to file the special leave petition. Subhasish Bhowmick, counsel appearing for the petitioner, drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment of the trial court, more particularly paragraph ‘6‘ where certain video footage of the incident has been referred to. The order reads: "It is noted by the trial court that the presence of the respondent no.2 is revealed therefrom, and he is part of the unlawful assembly. According to Mr. Bhowmick, the High Court does not even remotely refer  to this video footage while granting bail to the respondent no.2. Issue Notice." The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated October 23, 2024 in Kamakhya Singh @ Deepu Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024) passed by Justice Satyavrat Verma of the Patna High Court. 

Apprehending his arrest Kamakhya Singh @ Deepu Singh, in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302/34 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act, the petitioner had approached the High Court. The petitioner submitted that he is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on May 20, 2024 during Lok Sabha Election at Booth No. 318 and 319, Rohini Acharya, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) candidate came when some miscreants abused and misbehaved with her and also attacked her for which Chapra P.S. Case No. 342 of 2024 was instituted. It was next alleged that on account of the said occurrence dated May 20, 2024, 12 named accused persons including the petitioner on May 21, 2024 along with 40-50 unknown accused came variously armed and intercepted his son Chandan Ram at 07:00 a.m. at Bhikhari Chauk. Further, on orders of Chandan Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh and Mintu Singh, accused Ramakant Singh shot the son of the informant on his chest, thereafter petitioner shot Guddu Kumar causing injury on his waist while Ram Pratap Singh shot Manoj Ram causing injury on his temple and Satya Nand Singh shot Deepak causing injury on his right rib. It is next alleged that on alarm, the informant along with others came at the place of occurrence when the accused persons fled away and the injured were taken to the hospital where the Doctor declared Chandan Rai dead.

The petitioner submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It was also submitted that no overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant is not an eyewitness to the occurrence as he himself has stated in the FIR that the accused persons fled away when they saw that informant along with others are coming towards the place of occurrence on hearing the sound of firing. It was submitted that no doubt Chandan Rai died but then allegation of firing is against Ramakant Singh. It is submitted that the allegation does not even remotely suggest that on what basis the informant alleges that petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence when it is not disclosed in the FIR that he came to know about the presence of the accused persons including the petitioner by any of the injured or any eyewitness to the occurrence. It was also submitted that the FIR was instituted on May 21, 2024 and the petitioner was not even aware that he has been implicated in the instant case as accused no. 11 and the police in haste applied for process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. on July 1, 2024 and the same also came to be issued in a mechanical manner when the law is clear that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not to be issued for mere asking and for helping the police in investigation. It was submitted that after the petitioner came to know about the institution of the instant FIR, he approached the District Court in the month of August, 2024 seeking anticipatory bail which came to be rejected. It was submitted that the occurrence took place at 07:00 a.m. in the morning and the FIR came to be instituted at 08:30 p.m. in the evening on the same day i.e. after more than twelve hours but still the FIR does not disclose that on what basis the informant came to know about the involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence. It was further submitted by the counsel of that petitioner will not abscond and he will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

The counsel appearing for the informant had opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that similarly situated co-accused Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar Singh had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 63918 of 2024 but the same came to be rejected on the ground that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued by an order dated October 23, 2024. 

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not similarly situated like Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar Singh as he was alleged to have fired causing injury to Guddu on his waist when against the petitioner there is no specific allegation.

The High Court concurred with the submission of the petitioner's counsel who contended that the informant was not an eyewitness to the occurrence nor the FIR discloses that on what basis the informant had alleged that petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was not to be issued for mere asking for helping the police in the investigation, rather process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued for ensuring the presence of the accused before the court.

The High Court's order reads: "Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Chapra Town P.S. Case No. 346 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C." 

Rohini Acharya (44) was a candidate from Saran during the parliamentary elections. The voting was on May 20, 2024 and results were announced on June 4, 2024. Rajiv Pratap Rudy, the candidate of BJP contested successfully against her.  

The numerical analysis of the election results and voter turnout percentage conducted by revealed that the subsequent hike in voter turnout disproportionately benefited the winning candidate. The voter percentile increase in Bihar's three parliamentary constituencies including Saran has been recorded in Report: Conduct of Lok Sabha Elections 2024:Analysis of ‘Vote Manipulation’ and ‘Misconduct during Voting and Counting (July 30, 2024). The voter percentile increase in Bihar was 3.30 %. Total original votes were 3.52 crore votes. 11.60 lakh votes spread over 40 parliamentary constituencies was hiked or dumped. 29 thousand votes per constituency was increased. The situation in Saran, Araria and Sheohar is quite stark. Notably, in Saran, the BJP’s margin of victory is 13,661 votes. In Araria, the BJP’s margin of victory is 20,094 voters and in Sheohar, the JDU’s margin of victory is 29,143 votes. Rudy got 471,752 votes, which is 46.18 % of votes. Acharya got 4,58,091 votes, which is 44.84 % of votes.  

Significantly, in order to defeat Rohini Acharya, Laxaman Prao Yadav was put as an independent who secured 22041 votes which is 2.16 of the votes, Shak Naushad was put as an independent who secured 16101 votes which is 1.58 % votes and Avinash Kumar of Bahujan Samaj Party secured 14708 votes which is 1.45 % of the votes. 

Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to constitute larger bench to decide Tahir Hussain's bail for campaiging in Delhi assembly election

On January 22, 2025, the Supreme Court's division bench of Justices Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed an order to refer the case of bail of Tahir Hussain, a former Councilor from Nehru Vihar, East Delhi to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna after they gave a split verdict. Hussain had won as Councillor on the ticket of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). He was made an accused in the February 2020 riots. He had approached the Supreme Court after he failed to secure an interim bail to campaign for Delhi assembly polls from the High Court. Justice Mithal dismissed Hussain's plea saying no case was made out but Justice Amanullah opined held that  could be released on interim bail. 

Prior to that both judges expressed differing opinions in their 31-page judgement. 

Justice Mithal observed: "In the event interim bails are to be allowed for purposes of contesting elections, it will open a Pandora's box. Since elections are all year round, every undertrial would come with the plea that he wants to participate in elections and therefore be granted interim bail. This would open floodgates, which in our opinion can't be permitted". He added, "Once such right is recognised, as a sequel, the petitioner would ask for right to vote, which is circumscribed by Section 62 of the Representation of Peoples Act." He opined that releasing him on interim bail would amount to permitting the accused to go for door-to-door canvassing and hold meetings in the locality where the crime took place and witnesses reside. "Hence, there is a high possibility of the accused meeting the witnesses. The chargesheet reveals serious allegations against the accused and that the rooftop of his house/office was used as the "epicentre" for the offences." Justice Amanullah observed that the petitioner was in custody since March, 2020, and had secured bail in most cases and the Delhi High Court allowed him to file nomination. His judgement reads: "Subject to apt conditions, the petitioner can be granted interim bail for limited period. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner is enlarged on interim bail however till February 4 noon". Notably, the Delhi High Court had granted custody parole to Hussain to file nomination papers from the Mustafabad, Delhi Assemly constituency on an AIMIM ticket on January 14, 2025. But the Court refused his plea for interim bail from January 14 to February 9, 2025 to undertake election campaign. The High Court observed that about 11 FIRs were registered against him in connection with violence in North East Delhi on February 24, 2020, during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The violence claimed the lives of more than 50 people, mostly Muslims. 

The joint order of Justice Mithal and Amanullah reads: "Since our opinions are differing, we direct the Registry to place the papers immediately before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India".

Vidhu Kumar, Superintendent of Beur Jail Suspended, the story of Bihar jails so far

January 22, 2025: Vidhu Kumar, Superintendent of Beur Jail, Patna has been suspended. He had joined Beur Jail only six months ago. After the Economic Offences Unit (EOU) investigation, suspension action has been taken against Vidhu Kumar, who is accused in the disproportionate assets case. The Home Department (Prison), Bihar has issued orders related to this. EOU had raided his government residence, office and ancestral house in the first week of this month. During the suspension period, Vidhu Kumar's headquarters has been fixed as Buxar Central Jail. The department has issued instructions to prepare a charge sheet against the suspended jail superintendent and take departmental action. He is accused of acquiring illegal property worth crores. 

On January 4, 2025, the EOU had raided various locations of Vidhu Kumar after registering an FIR in disproportionate cases. In this context, Economic Offenses Police Station Case No. 01/25, dated January 3, 2025 has been registered. This Bihar Prison Service officer has been accused of having benami property worth crores of rupees. EOU had found many important documents and evidence in the raid. It has been reported that he owns disproportionate assets worth Rs 2.4 crore, which were 146% higher than his known sources of income. The raiding team  searched Vidhu Kumar’s ancestral house at Bishunpur under Bihta block in Patna district.

October 1, 2024: The Telegraph reported that inmates lodged at the Beur Central Jail in Bihar’s Patna embarked on an indefinite hunger strike from October 1 to protest the violation of the basic human rights and dignity of the inmates. They have formed a “prisoners’ agitation committee” to carry forth their struggle to demand proper facilities and alleged severe exploitation, repression and corruption by the jail authorities. They have pointed out that they were a mix of undertrials and convicts and were “agitating against the prison management for more than a month”. “We sent a memorandum to the Bihar governor, chief minister, Patna high court chief justice, state chief secretary, home secretary and other officials and went on a hunger strike on August 30. The prison officials promised to make amends and requested us to end it. However, they did not keep their word and started transferring the main leaders who had spearheaded the hunger strike,” the statement said. The letter alleged that a flourishing ecosystem of exploitation in the Beur Central Jail and contains grave allegations on its superintendent and other officials, ranging from extortion of ₹3,000 to 5000 per month from the prisoners and their families to provide them better food and facilities. It has also called for an independent probe into the charges. “The jail manual talks about 250gm rice and flour daily to an inmate, but only 150gm is provided by the jail administration due to which common prisoners are constant victims of hunger and malnutrition. Morning and evening breakfast, and special food items like milk on Monday, paneer on Wednesday, eggs on Saturday, and poori on Sunday have been stopped,” the letter said. The jail canteen charges up to twice the MRP (maximum retail price) for various things sold to the prisoners. Necessary medicines and a nutritious diet are not being provided to patients in the jail hospital, and money is fleeced from the inmates to send them to hospitals outside the jail for treatment. The letter demanded that all these issues be resolved, bring back the Maoists transferred to other jails, allow two STD phone calls every week, regular cleaning of toilets, mosquito nets and electric kettles be allowed and four water hand pumps be installed in every sector of the jail. Vidhu Kumar told The Telegraph: “These are baseless. There are no problems inside the jail.” 

30 June 2024:  Vidhu Kumar came to Beur jail after being transferred from Motihari Central Jail, Bihar. Although he is a Level 9 officer and not a Central Jail level officer but the Home Department ignored the rules and appointed him the Superintendent of Beur Jail, Bihar on 30 June 2024. Before becoming Beur Jail Superintendent, Vidhu Kumar had also held the post of Superintendent in Purnia, Madhubani and Katihar Jail. He has faced serious allegations in the past.

Also read: "Inhuman Conditions in Prisons" case pending in Patna High Court since June 2018 

Deplorable conditions of prisons in Bihar

IN RE- INHUMAN CONDITIONS IN 1382 PRISONS  

The status report-2015 on ‘prisons of Bihar’ revealed that the structures which the occupying imperial regime deemed fit for animals is being used to keep prisoners. The report was based on based on survey, Inspection and Analysis Made behalf of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. 

NHRC had expressed its displeasure after it went through a report in the Indian Express published on September 17, 2007, on the dumping of the bodies of lynched men in Ganga by the Bihar cops. The Commission had already sent a notice to the DGP, Bihar and SSP, Vaishali, on the issue and found the ensuing incident distressing. The Commission took note of electronic media reports, which showed the bodies of the lynched men lying on the banks of Ganga near Hajipur instead of being given a proper cremation and asked for a factual report from the DGP, Bihar, within four weeks.

 

 

 

PIL in Supreme Court challenges appointment of chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC)

In a significant development, a PIL in the Supreme Court was filed by Advocate Brajesh Singh on January 21, 2025 challenging the appointment of Parmar Ravi Manubhai as chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). Parmar is an accused in the alleged corruption case registered by Bihar's vigilance bureau. The matter is pending before a special judge in Patna. The petitioner alleged that Parmar did not fulfil the basic eligibility criteria for being appointed to the constitutional post of chairperson as he was not a person with an impeccable character. The Times of India has reported about it and the Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission scam.  

Bihar's vigilance investigation bureau had submitted the chargesheet on April 26, 2019 against a serving, two retired IAS officers and five others for alleged involvement in Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission scam in which crores funds meant for upliftment of Mahadalit youth were embezzled. The accused against whom chargesheet was submitted before special vigilance court included S.M. Raju, Ramashish Paswan, Prabhat Kumar, Saurav Basu, Umesh Manjhi, Jaideep Kar and Debjani Kar. Two of the six firms involved in the Mission were Indus Integrated Information Management (IIIM) and  Sriram New Horizon (SNH). Funds allocated under state government’s Dashrath Manjhi Skill Development Scheme and special assistance from Union government.  Mission had come into force in 2010. The scam continued till 2016. FIR was lodged against chargesheeted persons along with IAS officer Parmar Ravi Manubhai and Sharad Kumar Jha on October 23, 2017. Public prosecutor (in-charge) Vijay Sinha, assisted by counsel Anandi Singh had submitted that funds were released the two private firms even without conducting courses or examinations. Union government’s sanction against these bureaucrats has been pending. The chargesheet was filed within a week of Patna High Court’s anger against K.P. Ramaiah over his continuous evading of arrest after rejection of his in 2018. Justice Rakesh Kumar had taken suo motu cognisance of the bail granted to former bureaucrat K.P. Ramaiah in a corruption case. 

In his 20-page order on August 28, 2019, Justice Kumar had asked for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to inquire into the matter. Justice Kumar himself had denied the officer anticipatory bail in 2018. On August 29, 2029, the Patna High Court had withdrawn all judicial work from Justice Kumar and an 11-judge bench of the High Court comprising of the then Chief Justice A.P. Sahi and Justices Anjana Mishra and Anil Kumar Upadhyay had stayed his order but he was reassigned the cases from September 2, 2019. In his August 28, 2019 order, Justice Kumar had asked as to how the former bureaucrat was granted bail by a lower court when the Supreme Court as well as the High Court had rejected his plea for anticipatory bail because of the seriousness of the allegations. Ramaiah is accused of embezzling over Rs 5 crore during his tenure as the Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission chairperson.  

(Both the Chief Justice Sahi and Justice Kumar were transferred from the Patna High Court. Justice Kumar was transferred to Andhra Pradesh High Court as judge on November 8, 2019 and he retired on December 31, 2020. Justice Sahi was transferred to the Madras High Court in November 10, 2019 from where he demitted office on December 31, 2020. He assumed the charge of President, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on August 2, 2023. He will retire on August 1, 2027. Justice Kumar joined National Company Law Appellate Tribunal on May 17, 2022 as Member (Judicial), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Justice Kumar resigned from the NCLAT on October 29, 2023 after the Supreme Court issued a contempt notice against him for passing a judgment that went against the Supreme Court's interim order.)

The fate of the Bihar Mahadalit Vikas Mission scam case in the High Court merits scrutiny as well.

(Significantly, in one of the last judgments as Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Request Case No. 104/2023 in Karnataka State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar (2025), Chief Justice Chandran as the Single Judge Bench passed a judgement on January 10, 2025 which reads: "Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar, a former Judge of this Court, is appointed as learned Arbitrator to adjudicate all disputes arising out of agreement entered into between the parties to the lis....")

Bihar government had appointed Parmar as chairman, BPSC on March 16, 2024. General Administration Department (GAD) of the Bihar government had issued a notification in this regard. He was due to retire in November 2024. Prior to this he was posted as Additional Chief Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Bihar government. After the tenure of BPSC chairman Atul Prasad ended on February 12, 2024 the General Administration department had given the charge of chairman of BPSC to Imtiaz Ahmed Karimi, a member of the BPSC.

Ruling party files election expenditure reports of its central headquarters

The political Parties were required to file their Election Expenditure reports by September 4,

2024. Notably, Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) filed its election expenditure report for Lok Sabha elections on January 22, 2025.

BJP’s (Central HQ) opening balance on the date of announcement of polls was Rs 3,766 crore. The funds received by BJP (Central HQ) during Lok Sabha elections was Rs 5,552 crore. BJP’s (Central HQ) expenditure during Lok Sabha elections was Rs 1,957 crore. BJP’s (Central HQ) balance on the date of completion of polls as on June 2024 was Rs 7,361 crore. Significantly, BJP (Central HQ) spent 25 crore in Facebook during March 16, 2024 -June 6, 2024. These do not include the account of BJP’s State Units’ expenditures. It is hoped the a cumulative expenditure of State Units’ expenditures and BJP (Central HQ) will come to light soon.

The political parties directly collect funds and incur expenditure during elections. They collect funds exclusively for election campaigns and spend the same on publicity, advertisement, travel and on candidates for their individual campaigns.

All the political parties contesting in Lok Sabha and Assembly elections (recognised national and regional parties and unrecognised regional parties) are required to maintain the total funds collected during the election period (from th date of announcements of elections to the date of completion of elections) in cash, cheque and in kind. They are also required to maintain the total expenditure incurred in cash and cheque during the same election period apart from the various heads under which the funds were spent. These heads include publicity, travel, on candidates and other expenses.

The contesting political parties are required to file their expenditure statements to the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the format specified by the Commission within 75 days of Assembly elections and 90 days of Lok Sabha elections.  ECI akes these statements available in the public domain via below link on its website for scrutiny of public. The website is:

http://eci.nic.in/eci_main1/PolPar/expenditurereports.aspx

But there are no provisions laid down in the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 (RPA) regarding the format and periodicity of submission of expenditure statements nor clause for penalty in case of defaulting parties.

The Supreme Court in its judgement dated 4th April, ’96 (Common Cause vs. Union of India) had observed the lack of transparency in the election expenditure incurred by parties and directed the Election Commission to create a format for the recognised parties to submit their statements. The judgement can be referred from the link below:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=15749

For the first time, the ECI suspended the recognition of a political party (National People’s Party) for failing to submit its Lok Sabha expenditure statement incurred in 2014 which prompted the party to duly file its statement.

Unlike the limit of election expenditure imposed on a contesting candidate by the Union of India through the ECI, there is no limit on the expenditure that a party can incur during its election campaigns.

The Indian judiciary had observed in a number of judgements that the current legal provisions were not sufficient to hold political parties accountable for the money collected from various sources as the donor details are unavailable in the public domain as did other Committee reports. The Apex court had also voiced its concern over the fact that elections were now being contested on the might of monies which might have been obtained from illegal sources. 

ADR has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court requesting the court to issue such directions that the recommendations of the 170th Law Commission’s report be implemented. The 170th Report suggested monitoring and regulation of expenditure by political parties.

Apart from requesting the High Court to issue directions on implementation of the recommendations of the 170th Law Commission report, ADR has included the following 3 major prayers in its petition:

• introduction of a ceiling on election expenditure incurred by political parties, on and during elections;

• direction to political parties to submit election expenditure statements one year prior to the date of

announcements of elections (Lok Sabha Assembly elections);

• increase the frequency of submission of expenditure statements during the election period: once a month before declaration of elections and at least once a week during the election period.

Details of the complete PIL can be accessed from: http://goo.gl/5MQQb4

The ECI's expenditure monitoring system is an important part of ensuring that elections in India are free and fair. By monitoring election expenditure, the ECI helps to prevent candidates and political parties from using their wealth to influence the outcome of elections.

During the conduct of elections, it is one of the major aspects to keep a record of the expenses of the candidate over the election. All the candidates have to keep a record of their expenses and once the election is over then all the candidate has to submit the expenses report to the DEO after 30 days from the date of declaration of result.

The expenditure monitoring system is also one of the modules of the ENCORE where the DEOs have to fill the DEO scrutiny report for all the candidates of his district. The candidate keeps the regular records during the campaign period to properly and correctly account every election expenditure incurred by the candidates and political parties during this period. The Online application of Expenditure provides for capturing of expenses by candidate over public meetings, posters, banners, vehicle, and ceiling for candidate expenditure. The candidate also keeps the record of the funds that he receives from the parties for his expenses. Once the election is over he needs to submit the complete details to the DEO for the ACs he has contested.

Key benefits of the ECI's expenditure monitoring system: It keeps the accounts of all the inflow and outflow of the funds that he has used in the election. The system also shows the understated accounts on the dashboard. Separate login for the zonal division in ECI to receive and close the report. Verification of the accounts at CEO level before submission to ECI.

Provision to save the partially filled report in draft and candidate wise data entry on the portal.