Arwal's first full district court was inaugurated on September 10, 2026 some 25 years after the district was carved out of Jehanabad on August 20, 2001 to bring justice near to residents of the district who had to travel around 35 km to Jehanabad for their court proceedings. It is the newest district in Bihar. Priort to this Arwal district used to have a Sub-divisional Court of Jehanabad Judgeship. The new court was inaugurated by Justice Sudhir Singh, the senior most judge of Patna High Court. Earlier, Baliram Dubey, Secretary, Department of Law, government of Bihar read out the notification. Prajesh Kumar has been made first Principal District and Sessions Judge of Arwal district court. With the inauguration of the Arwal Civil Court, Bihar now has 84 Court Complexes and some 270 establishments.
The name "Arwal Pargana" appears in early British colonial legal records maintained at Fort William. After the devastating Bengal Famine of 1770, there was heavy depopulation in western Bihar and the Arwal region, of the East Bengal. Judicial diaries submitted to the Governor-General in Council at Fort William recounted one instance, where nine individuals from Arwal died in colonial jails after being put in custody on "suspicion of robbery". It highlighted the draconian and rudimentary nature of early British East India company's penal administration over Bihar from their Calcutta headquarters. Prior to 1861, local appeals from the regional Mufassal (provincial) courts in Bihar were sent to the Sadar Diwani Adalat (for civil cases) and the Sadar Nizamat Adalat (for criminal cases) located in Calcutta. Post 18621, the Calcutta High Court was formally established on July 1, 1862, which absorbed the older Sadar courts and assumed absolute appellate jurisdiction over all districts in Bihar, including the territories surrounding Arwal. Colonial-era cases originating from the Arwal and greater Gaya regions that reached the Calcutta High Court primarily revolved around: major litigation involving complex landlord-tenant clashes, zamindari debt, estate attachments, and the collection of unauthorized cesses (known as abwabs). Arwal’s proximity to the Son river and the British-built Son Canal system resulted in numerous disputes over water taxes, agricultural output, and land acquisition. Severe criminal offenses or cases involving European subjects in the Mufassal were routinely referred up to the high court benches in Calcutta. The cases from Arwal ceased to go to Calcutta following the establishment of the Patna High Court in 1916, which took over judicial authority for the newly carved-out province of Bihar.
In recent times, Arwal's name is etched in history as the site of police massacre dated April 19, 1986. Under C.R. Kaswan, Superintendent of Police (SP), police had opened fire on a peaceful peasant gathering called by the Mazdur Kisan Sangram Samiti (MKSS) at the Gandhi Library in Arwal over a 26-decimal plot of disputed land. The firing resulted in the deaths of over 21 landless peasant workers. It was described as the "Jallianwala Bagh of Bihar".
A writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court and a PIL was filed regarding this massacre in the Supreme Court. In Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 AIR 355, Justices Rangtnath Misra and M.M. Dutt delivered a 5-page long judgement dated December 19, 1986. It was authored by Justice Misra. The judgement recorded that it was alleged that on April 19, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the then district of Gaya. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. Separate unofficial inquiries held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21 and there was no justification for the firing. It appeared to the Court that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families on the other were parties. Even though several people died and many more were injured by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police started a false case being Arwal PS Case No. 59 of 1986 and therein implicated several innocent people including even some of the people who had been killed in the firing. The writ petition had had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or make an order or direction in the matter of payment of full and proper compensation to the victims-relations of the dead and to the people who were injured by police firing; for a direction to withdraw the police case referred to above; (3) for a direction to Respondent 1 to settle the land in dispute with the nine poor families and to give a direction for instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity.
During the pendency of the writ application, the State Government directed an inquiry therein by Vinod Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. The inquiry was completed and the report was furnished to the government. On the orders of the Court, the report was produced before the Supreme Court with a claim of privilege against its disclosure. B.D Sharma, Assistant Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made a report. That document was summoned and was produced before the Court, in respect thereof the Union Government also claimed privilege.
Supreme Court heard the matter while a writ petition was pending before the Patna High Court prior to filing of this application under Article 32. It was prayed that the writ petition pending in the High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court so that both the matters can be heard together. Justice Misra observed: "We are of the view that it would be appropriate that the matter is examined by the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce material before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will be in a position to call for documents and, if necessary, affidavits of parties concerned as and when necessary while dealing with the matter; and without notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties in the writ petition before the High Court an order of transfer may not be appropriate. In these circumstances, we have not thought it proper to have the writ petition in the High Court transferred to this Court. On the other hand, we have considered it expedient and proper in the interest of justice to dispose of some aspects of the matter now and leave it open to the petitioner to canvass the other aspects by getting itself impleaded before the High Court in the pending writ petition or by the filing of an independent application."
Supreme Court's judgement reads: "We direct that:(1) Without prejudice to any just claim for compensation that may be advanced by the relations of the victims who have died or by the injured persons themselves, for every case of death compensation of Rs 20,000 and for every injured person compensation of Rs 5000 shall be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. These payments be made within two months hence. (2) In case the petitioner gets impleaded in the pending writ petition before the High Court or files a separate writ petition and presses for disclosure of the report of Mr Kumar, the High Court may examine the question as to whether the report will be made public and in the event of privilege being claimed, the question of privilege will also be examined by the High Court. (3) We have read the report furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and since the report is not relevant to the point in issue, it is not necessary to ask the High Court to call for the report. We direct that the report be returned to the appropriate Ministry from where it has been brought. (4) The investigation of the pending police case shall be completed within three months from now. In case charge-sheet is submitted, it would be open to the petitioner or any other aggrieved party to challenge the maintainability of the charges in accordance with law."
In recent times, Arwal's name is etched in history as the site of police massacre dated April 19, 1986. Under C.R. Kaswan, Superintendent of Police (SP), police had opened fire on a peaceful peasant gathering called by the Mazdur Kisan Sangram Samiti (MKSS) at the Gandhi Library in Arwal over a 26-decimal plot of disputed land. The firing resulted in the deaths of over 21 landless peasant workers. It was described as the "Jallianwala Bagh of Bihar".
A writ petition was filed in the Patna High Court and a PIL was filed regarding this massacre in the Supreme Court. In Peoples' Union For Democratic Rights vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1987 AIR 355, Justices Rangtnath Misra and M.M. Dutt delivered a 5-page long judgement dated December 19, 1986. It was authored by Justice Misra. The judgement recorded that it was alleged that on April 19, 1986, 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless people mostly belonging to the backward classes had collected for holding a peaceful meeting within the compound of Gandhi Library in Arwal, a place within the then district of Gaya. Without any previous warning by the police or any provocation on the part of the people who had so collected, the Superintendent of Police, reached the spot with police force, surrounded the gathering and opened fire as a result of which several people were injured and at least 21 persons including children died. Separate unofficial inquiries held into the atrocity and the reports indicated that the number of deaths was much more than 21 and there was no justification for the firing. It appeared to the Court that there was a dispute relating to possession of 26 decimals of low lying land adjacent to the canal at Arwal and to such dispute members of a rich Rajak family on one side and members of nine poor families on the other were parties. Even though several people died and many more were injured by the ruthless and unwarranted firing resorted to by the police, to give a cover to the atrocities, the police started a false case being Arwal PS Case No. 59 of 1986 and therein implicated several innocent people including even some of the people who had been killed in the firing. The writ petition had had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ or make an order or direction in the matter of payment of full and proper compensation to the victims-relations of the dead and to the people who were injured by police firing; for a direction to withdraw the police case referred to above; (3) for a direction to Respondent 1 to settle the land in dispute with the nine poor families and to give a direction for instituting a judicial inquiry into the alleged atrocity.
During the pendency of the writ application, the State Government directed an inquiry therein by Vinod Kumar, Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar. The inquiry was completed and the report was furnished to the government. On the orders of the Court, the report was produced before the Supreme Court with a claim of privilege against its disclosure. B.D Sharma, Assistant Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes visited the locality and made a report. That document was summoned and was produced before the Court, in respect thereof the Union Government also claimed privilege.
Supreme Court heard the matter while a writ petition was pending before the Patna High Court prior to filing of this application under Article 32. It was prayed that the writ petition pending in the High Court be transferred to the Supreme Court so that both the matters can be heard together. Justice Misra observed: "We are of the view that it would be appropriate that the matter is examined by the High Court. It would be convenient to the parties to produce material before the High Court on account of proximity; the High Court will be in a position to call for documents and, if necessary, affidavits of parties concerned as and when necessary while dealing with the matter; and without notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity to the parties in the writ petition before the High Court an order of transfer may not be appropriate. In these circumstances, we have not thought it proper to have the writ petition in the High Court transferred to this Court. On the other hand, we have considered it expedient and proper in the interest of justice to dispose of some aspects of the matter now and leave it open to the petitioner to canvass the other aspects by getting itself impleaded before the High Court in the pending writ petition or by the filing of an independent application."
Supreme Court's judgement reads: "We direct that:(1) Without prejudice to any just claim for compensation that may be advanced by the relations of the victims who have died or by the injured persons themselves, for every case of death compensation of Rs 20,000 and for every injured person compensation of Rs 5000 shall be paid. Where some compensation has already been paid, the same may be adjusted when the amount now directed is being paid. These payments be made within two months hence. (2) In case the petitioner gets impleaded in the pending writ petition before the High Court or files a separate writ petition and presses for disclosure of the report of Mr Kumar, the High Court may examine the question as to whether the report will be made public and in the event of privilege being claimed, the question of privilege will also be examined by the High Court. (3) We have read the report furnished by the Assistant Commissioner of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and since the report is not relevant to the point in issue, it is not necessary to ask the High Court to call for the report. We direct that the report be returned to the appropriate Ministry from where it has been brought. (4) The investigation of the pending police case shall be completed within three months from now. In case charge-sheet is submitted, it would be open to the petitioner or any other aggrieved party to challenge the maintainability of the charges in accordance with law."
Arwal' name bring back the memory of the Senari massacre case. This incident occurred in Senari village (Arwal). In the infamous Senari massacre case 34 people of dominant caste members were killed allegedly by cadres of the banned Maoist Communist Centre in 1999 amid caste wars in Bihar. Senari village, in Jehanabad district at the time of the incident, now falls in Arwal district. The high court set aside the guilty verdict by a lower court. Senari village, in Jehanabad district at the time of the incident, now falls in Arwal. A division bench of Justices Ashwini Kumar Singh and Arvind Srivastava ruled that the prosecution witnesses “are not reliable” and the appellants deserved to be given the benefit of the doubt. The prosecution had failed to prove the participation of the appellants in the crime with credible evidence. Altogether, 23 witnesses and five doctors who conducted autopsies on the deceased recorded their statements before the court. Prior to this, on November 18, 2016, the Jehanabad district court had sentenced 10 persons to death and awarded life imprisonment to three others. The court had acquitted 23 others for lack of evidence. Those awarded the death penalty were Bacchesh Singh, Buddhan Yadav, Butai Yadav, Satendra Das, Lallan Pasi, Dwarika Paswan, Kariban Paswan, Godai Paswan, Uma Paswan and Gopal Paswan. On the evening of March 18, 1999, alleged members of the Maoist organisation forced 34 people to line up near a temple at Senari village and killed them by slitting their throats and shooting them. Chinta Devi, whose husband Awadh Kishore Sharma and son Madhukar alias Jhabbu were among those massacred, was the complainant in the case. She died in 2011. The Senari massacre, one of the last in a series of caste-related killings, was carried out in retaliation to the Lakshman-Bathe massacre in which 58 Dalits were killed. This massacre was a mass killing of Dalit villagers that took place on the intervening night of November 30–December 1, 1997 in Arwal. Laxmanpur-Bathe village near the Sone river in Arwal district, (then part of Jehanabad district). 58 to 61 Dalit and landless villagers—including women, pregnant women, and young children—were slaughtered. The armed members of the Ranvir Sena, an upper-caste militant group. The attack was intended to terrorize and suppress landless agricultural laborers who were organizing themselves. A Patna civil court convicted 26 men, sentencing 16 to death and 10 to life imprisonment, calling it a "stigma on civil society" on April 7, 2010. Patna High Court's verdict dated October 9, 2013 acquitted all 26 accused individuals, citing unreliability of prosecution witnesses and a lack of sufficient evidence.
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna who is an amicus curiae in the special laws/courts matter said, "The legal remedy for the Laxmanpur Bathe and Senari massacres remains pending in the Supreme Court as of 2026. Both cases followed a similar legal trajectory, wherein, lower trial courts initially convicted the accused, but the Patna High Court overturned those rulings and acquitted everyone. The Bihar government later filed appeals, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear."
As to C.R. Kaswaan who led the indiscriminate firing by Police in Arwal, Dr. Krishna observed:"Kaswan is remembered as the notorious General Dyer of Bihar who served in Arwal, Jehanabad under Bindeshwari Dubey, the 17th Chief Minister of Bihar during1985-1988. Demonstrating short memory, it is quite ironical that Kaswan, violator of human rights was invited to speak and preside at a seminar and inter college debate on the Contemporary human rights issues at Lalahans Raj Phutela College of Law campus in association with Citizen’s Forum on Human Rights-Sirsa Chapter, Haryana. Notably, a book titled Glimpses of Reality by Kaswan was released at the seminar on "Security of Women, Contemporary Justice System and ‘From Minorityism to Nationalism’ held at Lal Somnath Auditoriuam at CMK National College Sirsa. The Conference was jointly organized by Lal Hansraj Phutela College of Law and Adhivakta Parishad Haryana where a n commemorative magazine of the Adhivakta Parishad was also released. The organisers forgot about the Arwal massacre of April 1989 led by Kaswan and the fact that Sonali Das of The Times of India Ranchi on October 7, 0224 had reported about Jharkhand High Court's direction to the Bihar Accountant General (AG) to stop the pension of C R Kaswaan in a corruption case in connection with the appointment of a constable, Jwala Ram, in 1992. Ram had filed a petition in the court in 1992, challenging the appointment of two of his junior colleagues as constables, while his appointment was sidelined by Kaswaan, when he was senior SP of Ranchi and was heading the district selection committee for appointments. The court had disposed of the case in 2002, directing the government to make the relevant appointment. When the government failed to take any step, Ram once again filed a contempt petition in the High Court in which the government submitted that relevant file of the selection committee is missing and since it was in the custody of Kaswaan he was the only person who can trace it. The state police department despite its best efforts is unable to locate Kaswaan who was residing in Punjab after his retirement. Kaswan had opted for the Bihar cadre after bifurcation of the state in 2000. Justice Vikramiditya Prasad had directed the AG Bihar, to stop Kaswaan''s pension till the time he appeared before the DGP in Jharkhand. The move was aimed at pressurising the retired IPS official for his personal appearance in the court so that the file can be traced. The case of missing files and fate of the case filed by Jwala Ram is not known."
Kaswaan retired as an Inspector General (IG) of Police. He has been posted as SP in places like Arwal and Ranchi and was DIG Champaran Range. Is it not true that in general, violators of human rights end up facing charges of corruption? Has the High Court been able to trace the file which was with Kaswaan?
No comments:
Post a Comment