Sunday, November 23, 2025

Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional District and Sessions Judge accuses Rishi Kant, Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM, SP of Begusarai from contempt

Brajesh Kumar Singh, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed an order stating that Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai of interfering in judicial proceedings to save DM and SP of Begusarai from contempt. In an order passed on November 17, Judge Singh has stated that Judge Kant abruptly recalled an execution case from his court, without any application from the parties or any report from him, after he recommended contempt proceedings against the District Magistrate (DM) and Superintendent of Police (SP) of Begusarai for failing to comply with court directions. 

Singh is the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai since February 1, 2025. He has done his Masters in Law. He will retire in February 2041. Singh has accused Rishi Kant, the Principal District and Sessions Judge of interfering in an execution petition against the DM and SP. Kant is Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai since March 5, 2025. He has done his Graduation in Law. He will retire in December 2037. 

The execution petition in question is related to a compensation amount of ₹11 lakh, awarded in August 2023 to the guardian of a petitioner who died in an accident caused by a police vehicle. The authorities allegedly failed to release the compensation, prompting the judge to consider contempt action. Judge Singh was hearing the matter since early 2024 before the astounding recall order without perusal of the case file in question. 

Judge Singh stated that Judge Kant passed the recall order “hastily” even though the case file was still with his court. Citing provision under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), Singh said that its provision does not allow transfers at the whims of a senior judge. His order reads: “Every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial principles… The Principal District and Sessions Judge has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings,”  He observed:“Why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders… when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary.” 

In Manish Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through D.M., Begusarai & Ors. (2025), Brajesh Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, the Presiding Judge in the Court of District Judge-III, Begusarai passed an order dated November 17, 2025. The order reads:"Vide order dated 14.10.2025 against D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai, the contempt proceeding was recommended, and for this purpose, a separate miscellaneous case was registered. Vide the same order, show-causes from D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai were invited, however, till date, no show cause has been filed on their behalf. This court has given several opportunities to both D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai for receiving their respective replies as condition precedent to start contempt against them, but they have let the opportunities go. On behalf of D.M. Begusarai, neither show-cause nor response was filed. However, a response on behalf of S.P., Begusarai to the order dated 14.10.2025 has been filed. It is relevant to point out that, in para no-08 at page no-04 of his response, the S.P., Begusarai reserved his right to file his detailed show-cause before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna itself. It appears that D.M., Begusarai and S.P., Begusarai are willing to file their respective show-causes in the Hon'ble High Court, Patna directly. Hence, this court finds fit to direct the O.C to send the extracts of miscellaneous case (with the relevant orders) to the Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Patna with the recommendation to initiate contempt against the S.P., Begusarai and D.M., Begusarai in view of the order of this court dated 14.10.2025. Put up this case on 26-11-2025." 


The order reads:"Later on, an order no-488 (Misc.) dated 15.11.2025 of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusrai was communicated. The copy of the order is shown to me. In the order, the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has been pleased to recall the present execution case no-01/2024 for keeping the same in his peronal file, for hearing and disposal. Though, this court has no vested interest in the matter, and is willing to send the records of the case to Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, and accordingly, O.C is directed to hand over the entire case records to the court of Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai for keeping the records in his personal file, yet this court notes that the case is recalled by the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai without any application at the behest of either party or without report of the court." 

The order observed: "More importantly, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has passed the aforesaid hasty order of transfer without even looking at the records, may be on the basis of his personal knowledge, because the entire file is pending in the court of District Judge-III." The Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has palpably passed the order in the interest of so-called 'administration', however, section 24 of CPC is conspicuously silent about transfer on the ground of so-called 'administration'. It is trite that power of the Principal District and Sessions Judge u/s-24 of the CPC can not be exercised at his whims and fancies'. It is well established that every such order of transfer must be based on sound judicial priniciples, which principles are conspicuously absent in the present order of transfer. The alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer alternative phrase "of its own motion" used in section 24 of the CPC cannot be equated with 'the pleasure' of Principal District and Sessions Judge. Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings in that case. By transferring the case at the concluding-stage from this court, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has violated the principle of judicial independence', the very judicial principle which every judge has sworn protect."


The order concluded: "By passing the order of transfer, Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge has made the judiciary a matter of laughing stocks in as much as the judges of sub-ordinate judiciary appear to be only paper tigers, having order passed by them has got binding effect on mighty and powerful bureaucrats. Truely speaking, my morale is badly dampened by seeing as to how the water is thrown at the entire efforts of this court by sheer this transfer. No judge would ever dare to pass order against the mighty bureaucrats like D.Ms and S.Ps, and then why only poor should be subjected to coercive orders of the court for non- compliance, when mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary. In my opinion, the transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai was made to shield the D.M., Begusarai and S.P, Begusarai from contempt proceeding. It is relevant to point out that the incumbent Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai has interfered in the judicial process in this case on earlier occasions also, which fact is duly recorded in the order of this count dated 23.09.2025. Nevertheless, let the justice be done in this case. am withdrawing from this case as mandated by the aforesaid transfer by Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai, but I have no regrets."

The principles with respect to the transfer of case under Section 24 CPC have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in Kulwinder Kaur vs. Kandi Friends Education Trust and others (2008) 3 SCC 659. It has held: "At the same time, however, an order of transfer must reflect application of mind by the court and the circumstances which weighed in taking the action…………..”
The observation of the Supreme Court demonstrates that Judge Kant seemed to have erred in passing order of transfer with out application of mind because the file of the case has not even reached him.    

No comments: