Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad delivered a 5-page long judgment on January 16, 2026 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13813 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6995 of 2019" which is titled "In view of Hon'ble courts order dt. 19-07-2024 passed in CWJC No.6995 of 2019 based on W.P. (C) No. 183 of 2013 of Hon'ble Apex Court(2026)", wherein it closed the case. In the 17th judgement authored by Chief Justice Sahoo concluded:"Advocate General submitted that these types of advertisements and appointments are continuous process and paragraph no. 7 would indicate the steps are being taken by the State in this regard and therefore, nothing remains to be adjudicated in this suo motu writ petition. 6. After hearing the learned Advocate General and perusing the supplementary counter affidavit filed as referred to above, the proceeding stands closed. 7. All pending interlocutory applications of intervenor petitioners, stands disposed of. 8. Needless to say, that if any intervenor has any grievance, he is at liberty to file separate writ petition."
Prior to this when the case was taken up on November 13, 2025, the Advocate General was asked to file fresh counter affidavit indicating the present status with respect to the appointment of police personnel. In compliance of the order, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of Under Secretary, Home Department (Police Branch), Patna.
The judgement recorded that "One Manish Kumar filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013 with following prayers:-"A. Direction to all the States & Union Territories to constitute Police Commission to deal with allegation of police action, redressal of grievances of police and to make recommendations for the welfare of police force. B. Directions to the States formulate to and implement the guidelines for prevention and control of violent mass agitations and destruction of life & property, in terms of the guidelines suggested by this Hon'ble Court in the decision reported as 2009(5)SCC 212. C. Directions to the States and Union Territories to fill up the vacant posts in the Police and State Armed forces so that the police forces does not remain overburdened. D. for directions to all the States and Union Territories to provide periodic training and upgradation of police force and to fix the working hours for the police personnel. Ε. Direction to the Union of India to prescribe guidelines for the Media Reporting of the violent mass agitation and police action for prevention and control thereof. F. Order or Direction restraining the States from drawing a presumption against the action of police acting constitutional and under the statutory obligations."
Supreme Court had disposed of the matter vide order dated March 11, 2019 and in the operative part of the order, it was observed that the records pertaining to each of the States including affidavits etc., be sent by the Supreme Court Registry to the Registry of the concerned High Courts with a request to the Chief Justice of the High Court to entertain the matter on Judicial Side as suo motu Public Interest Litigation and monitor the prayers made from time to time, and on the basis of such order CWJC No. 13813 of 2024 was suo motu instituted.
Several writ petitions were filed including contempt petitions and 44th Chief Justice K. Vinod Chndran headed Division Bench of the High Court vide 27-page long judgement dated July 19, 2024 in CWJC No. 6995 of 2019, has been pleased to pass the following order:- “28. We find absolutely no reason to entertain the contempt case also. There is no deliberate contempt of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 15487 of 2011 and analogous cases and the petitioners in the contempt having failed in the selection have no surviving cause. The contempt case also would stand closed. 29. Ordered accordingly. 30.The Registry shall immediately register a suo motu case as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as herein before directed.” On July 1, 2024, the same Division Bench had observed:"We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction does not include consideration of the challenge made against the recruitments and only directs general monitoring of the selections, which are to be made regularly. 3. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the above matters should be posted before the learned Single Judge having roster."
Prior to this the High Court's Division Bench of 42nd Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Justice Anjana Mishra had passed an order on May 6, 2019 which reads: "The affidavit filed today on behalf of the State of Bihar does not reflect the categorical status of the selection process, completed appointments and posts against which advertisement is yet to be made or selections are yet to be made. We may also put on record that the issue with regard to the framing of Rules has also been dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kashi Nath Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2019(2) PLJR 293, that may also be taken notice of and a response be filed in this regard as well. Let all this be clarified by way of a separate composite affidavit." The case was registered during the tenure of Chief Justice Sahi on April 4, 2019.
The order dated August 2, 2019 reads: "We have perused the affidavit of the Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar. Looking to the law and order situation prevailing in the State and keeping in view the citizen police ratio as well as the recommendations made in this regard that have been
discussed time and again by the Apex Court as well as by this Court, we find that the State machinery has virtually decided to proceed at a snail’s pace which is prima facie unacceptable to the Court. The reason is that the affidavit proceeds to suggest the filling up of the posts of 4586 Sub-Inspectors of police that are vacant in three phases stretching up to the year 2023. There is no explanation in the affidavit as to why this extended period of almost four years has been adopted to provide a force for the most essential function of the State of protecting life and property. We see no reason for the State to make a suggestion for making appointments spread over four years in respect of a requirement which, according to the State, exists today. Similar is the position in respect of other posts that have been indicated in the affidavit, including that of Constables about whom the averment is that there are 22655 posts of Constables and they
would also be recruited in a similar phased manner, in two phases of ten thousand each and 2655 in the last phase, the calendar whereof also stretches up to 2023. There are 2039 posts of Driver Constables available for direct recruitment. For them the time table has been prepared from December, 2019 stretching to May, 2021. Similar is the position in respect of other posts, but we have been unable to comprehend as to what was the rationality or even the difficulty in spreading over the recruitment on these posts in a phased manner for four years. We say this because these are the vacancies which are reflected to be existing as on date which will definitely be followed by vacancies in each coming year thereby increasing their number that would be required to be filled up. There is nothing in the affidavit to explain as to when will those vacancies be filled up in future. This cycle as projected in the affidavit is neither congenial for police administration nor does it any way come to the aid of the public at large who require the protection of the police every moment keeping in view the law and order and crime situation in the State."
The Division Bench's direction reads: "We, therefore, want an explanation from the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, as to why and on what basis has the Government suggested this recruitment in a phased manner spread over for such a long time when this is one of the most urgent requirements and the most prominent sovereign duties of the State under the Constitution. To our mind, the stifling of such process by the bureaucracy itself indicates apathy on the part of the Government in not giving priority to the basic needs of the citizens at large. This prima facie amounts to a failure on the part of the Government in not providing infrastructure or adequate facilities for recruitment in order to fulfill the immediate needs which are not only urgent, but fall within the first constitutional duties of the State. We have also been dealing with the cases of the Vigilance Department where appointments are being made on contract basis by engaging retired police personnel. This further adds to the manner in which the State Government is proceeding to deal with effective investigation in this State. We, therefore, want a clear explanation from the Government as to why should this Court not treat the exercise as proposed by the Government to be denying the basic fundamental rights of the citizens to seek protection from the State which is a welfare State."
Notably, an order dated February 5, 2020 by Chief Justice Sanjay Karol headed Division Bench states that as per the latest affidavit dated January 31, 2020 timeline for taking appropriate action has been laid down providing status of the process of recruitment for filling up vacancies of different posts in Bihar Police vis-a-vis the time-table. After the elevation of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol to the Supreme Court, the case lost its guardian for good. The case progressed quite well during the tenure of the 42nd Chief Justice and 43rd Chief Justice (November 2018-February 2023). After Justice K. Vinod Chandran became the Chief Justice of the High Court on March 29, 2023, the case which was registered on the directions of the Supreme Court lost its pace. During the term of 44th and 46th Chief Justices, the real purpose of the case was derailed by the vested interests who prefer status quo.
The opening sentence of the 27-page long judgement dated July 19, 2024 by the 44th Chief Justice headed Division Bench reads: "This case is a classic example of a Public Interest Litigation, suo motu initiated on the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being hijacked by purely private interests, diverting its course and digressing from the very purpose behind its initiation."
An audit of affidavit and counter affidavits and the Court's orders since 2019 will reveal as to who really hijacked the PIL. Did the Court insist on compliance with its previous orders? Did it direct the State to act according to the written assurances provided by the State in its counter affidavits?
Now that the proceedings has been closed, is not appropriate to wonder as to whether the Court was satisfied with the explanation from the Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary, Government of Bihar, as to why and on what basis has the Government suggested this recruitment in a phased manner spread over for such a long time when this is one of the most urgent requirements and the most prominent sovereign duties of the State under the Constitution. Has the Court changed its mind regarding the apathy on the part of the Government in the face of its failure to provide infrastructure or adequate facilities for recruitment in order to fulfill the immediate needs which are not only urgent, but fall within the first constitutional duties of the State. Is the Court satisfied contractual appointments of retired police personnel in the Vigilance Department? Has the Court concluded that such ad hoc appointments are not denying the basic fundamental rights of the citizens to seek protection from the State which is a welfare State?
The 47th Chief Justice has left a ray of hope by concluding that "if any intervenor has any grievance, he is at liberty to file separate writ petition."
No comments:
Post a Comment