Justice Harish Kumar sets aside order of Vice-chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, terms it "wholly illegal and without jurisdiction" contrary to Bihar Universities Act, 1976

In Navin Kumar @ Naveen Kumar vs. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2026),  Justice Harish Kumar delivered a 20-page long judgement dated July 202, 2026, wherein, he set aside order of Vice-chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, terms it "wholly illegal and without jurisdiction". The other six respondents were: 2. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, 3. The Director, Higher Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, 4. The Vice-Chancellor, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, 5. The Registrar, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur, 6. The Finance Officer, B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and 7. The Prof-Incharge, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand, District Sitamarhi.

Justice Kumar concluded:"....this Court is of the conscious opinion that the impugned order of dissolution of the Governing Body taken by the Vice-chancellor in its reasoned order dated 22.05.2026 is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, thus hereby set aside. Once the order of dissolution of the Governing Body does not survive, the consequential order for constitution of the Ad-hoc Committee would also be termed as illegal. However, the Court would not enter into the other aspects of the matter and the pleas taken by the learned Advocates regarding constitution and continuity of the Ad-hoc Committee on any other ground, as the same is not required to be dealt with at present. 29. This Court, however, in the facts of the case, further makes it clear that the order of this Court would not come in the way of the Vice-chancellor/University to deliberate upon and refer the matter to the Syndicate to take appropriate action/decision in the matter of continuation/dissolution of the Governing Body after following the mandate of Clause 28 of Statute 32 of the Act with the clear observance of the principles of natural justice, if the circumstances necessitate the same." 

The petitioner, an elected Secretary of the Governing College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi, constituted under Section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976, read with Statute 32, had approached the High Court being aggrieved with the reasoned order dated May 22, 2026 issued by the Vice-chancellor of the B.R.A. Bihar University under the signature of the Registrar of the University whereby and whereunder the Governing Body of the College was dissolved. He had also challenged order dated May 22, 2026 issued by the Registrar of the University by which Ad-hoc Committee has been constituted for the College, in question. The petitioner had also sought issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to restore the Governing Body constituted by Memo dated May 27, 2023.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the newly constituted Ad-hoc Committee submitted its report, regarding the action taken by the erstwhile Governing Body under letter dated June 23, 2026. Based upon such report the University by Memo dated June 25, 2026 constituted an enquiry committee to submit further reports on different points, the same was also challenged by filing an interlocutory application.

The College, in question, namely, Jawahar Lal Nehru Memorial College, Nawahi Sursand, Sitamarhi was established on July 10, 1965 and in course of time, the college was given permanent affiliation up to Honours level in the year 2009. In terms with Section 60 of the Bihar Universities Act, 1976 which mandates for constitution of a Governing Body for Management and Administration of each affiliated College, other than a college owned and maintained by the State Government or College establishment by a Minority Committee or an affiliated Technical or Medical College, as also read with Statute 32, a Governing Body was duly constituted for smooth functioning of the College, in question; and the petitioner, who was inducted as donor member further elected as Secretary of the Governing Body by the approval of the Vice-chancellor. The dispute began in the meeting of the Governing body dated October 26, 2024 wherein the Professor incharge, namely, Dr. Om Prakash Singh, who was the senior most teacher of the College and was to retire on October 31, 2024, his period was extended in the light of on going 4/20
NAAC Accreditation Process. The information in this regard was been given to the Registrar of the University by letter dated October 28, 2024 seeking approval for extension of service of incharge Principal of the College. Pending approval for extension of the services of Dr. Om Prakash Singh as Professor-cum-incharge Principal of the College, The petitioner being the Secretary of the Governing Body submitted his reply on December 16, 2025 mentioning that information regarding extension of service of Dr. Om Prakash Singh had already been communicated on October 28, 2024. It was made  clear that the College was bound to follow the direction of the University. On receipt of the show-cause notice, the Professor Incharge-cum-Principal Dr. Om Prakash Singh tendered his resignation on December 20, 2025, which was duly accepted by the Governing Body in its meeting held on January 4, 2026.

Dissatisfied with the response of the petitioner, the Vice-chancellor of the University vide its order dated
May 22, 2026 issued under the signature of University dissolved the Governing Body with immediate
effect and consequently all powers, authorities and financial control of the said Governing Body came to be ceased. In pursuance of the impugned order, a consequential order dated May 22, 2026 was also issued and an Ad-hoc committee was also constituted to manage the academic administration and financial affairs of the College until further orders or until constitution of a regular Governing Body in accordance with law, besides a direction to constitute an enquiry committee for examining the operation of accounts, utilization of grants as well as financial decision undertaken during the illegally extended tenure of the retired Principal.

The petitioner's senior counsel pointed out that the erstwhile Governing Body of the College was dissolved by an authority, which had no sanction under the law. It is only the Syndicate empowered under Clause 28 of the Statute 32 of the Act, which may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice- chancellor dissolve a Governing Body and order for its reconstitution; provided, the Syndicate has given a reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to show-cause against such action. At no point in time, any show-cause notice or reasonable opportunity was given by the Syndicate and the order of dissolution was passed by the Vice-chancellor, which was wholly illegal and against the teeth of all the prescriptions provided under Clause 28 of Statute 32. It is a settled law that in terms of Section 67 of the Act, 1976, the College or the University shall in no case extend the period of service of any of the teaching or non-teaching employees after he attains the age of superannuation. 

The senior counsel drew on decision of the High Court's Division Bench in Vijay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (L.P.A. No. 977 of 2024), wherein, by its judgment/order dated October 29, 2024, the provisions of Clause 28 of Statute 32, it highlighted cthat the Vice Chancellor does not have the competence or power to suspend or dissolve a properly constituted Governing Body.

The counsel also relied on reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Marathwada University vs. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan : (1989) 3 SCC 132, wherein the Court observed that the statutory authority cannot travel beyond the power conferred and any action without power has no legal validity. It was ab initio void and cannot be ratified. 

Justice Kumar observed:"....it is quite evident and imperative that it is the Syndicate, which may on its own motion or at the instance of the Vice-chancellor dissolve a Governing Body on account of the reasons mentioned therein, provided before the order of dissolution of the Governing body, the Syndicate shall give a reasonable opportunity to the Governing Body to show-cause against such action. 21. Since the mandate of the above noted prescription of law is very much clear that it is the Syndicate, who shall take a decision with regard to the dissolution of the Governing Body and, in fact, this position has not even been
disputed by any of the party, it need not require further emphasis that the order of dissolution of the Governing Body is to be taken in terms with Clause 28 of Statute 32 of the Act."

The Court examined as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case warrants immediate exercise of the emergency power assigned to the Vice-chancellor under Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976. Section 10(12) of the Act empowers the Vice-chancellor to take an immediate action involving the exercise of any power vested in the Syndicate or the Academic Council by or under this Act, he/she shall take such action as he deems fit, when the Syndicate or Academic Council is not in Session and he is satisfied that an emergency has arisen requiring its intervention.The Court observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no emergency situation had arisen, which required invocation of Section 10(12) of the Act, 1976.
Justice Kumar observed:"Undoubtedly, the power is vested with the Vice-chancellor to deal with the emergent circumstances, but in the present case, the exercise of such power appears to be wholly unwarranted." 
 

 

5 year old mental health act case tagged with "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report", a Suo Motu PIL

In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report (2026), a Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation was initiated by the Patna High Court's Division Bench pursuant to the report dated February 17, 2026 submitted by the Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority (BSLSA). BALSA's inspection report with respect to the shortcomings of mental health facilities in the State of Bihar as well as in Bihar State Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS), Koelwar, Bhojpur is an independent report. The case was listed for hearing on April 20, 2026 by the High Court's Division of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar by its 54-page long order dated March 16, 2026.

The PIL was filed and registered on February 17, 2026 and tagged with a 5-year-old case  filed by Vishal Kumar Singh, Akash Keshav, Deepak Kumar Singh and Shashwat with Advocate Akanksha Malviya as petitioner in person. 

By its order dated February 25, 2019, the High Court had issued notice to the (i) Principal Secretary, Health Department; (ii) Secretary, State Mental Health Authority, Bihar; (iii) Director, Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS); (iv) DG of Police, Bihar; (v) I.G. of Prisons; and (vi) Union of India and asked the concerned authorities to submit their responses on the following aspects:-
“i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the
2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming
for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital;
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA.

The notice was issued pursuant to relevant sections of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, NALSA (Legal Service to persons with Mental Illness and Persons with Intellectual Disabilities) Scheme, 2024, and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458 and in Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653 of 2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412 of 2016) vide order dated February 25, 2019. 

By its earlier 26-page long order dated February 18, 2026, the Division Bench had 9. The concerned authorities are to submit their responses on the following aspect: i) Whether any Mental Health Review Board has been constituted in accordance with Section 73 of the 2017 Act?
ii) If so, what are the functions being discharged by such Board under section 82 of the 2017 Act?
iii) How Bihar Institute of Mental Health and Allied Sciences (BIMHAS) is performing its duties and carrying out its responsibilities relating to the admission and treatment of persons with mental illness? What provisions have been made by the Hospital Authorities for supplying free food to the patients and attendants, medicines and to maintain the cleanliness and hygiene of the hospital and to create a positive environment?
iv) DG of Police shall submit a report regarding the duties performed by police officers of different police stations of the State in respect of persons with mental illness and their protection as envisaged under section 100 of 2017 Act, and also, I.G. of Prisons in respect of the prisoners with mental illness as per section 103 of 2017 Act;
v) The Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Service Authority (BSLSA) shall submit a report regarding the legal aid facilities provided to the persons with mental illness and particularly to those who are coming for treatment to BIMHAS;
vi) The Principal Secretary, Health Department shall submit a report regarding the steps taken by the government for rehabilitation of the persons with mental illness after their recovery and discharge from the Hospital; 
vii) Report shall also be submitted by the State through a Responsible Officer regarding the steps taken to address the issues highlighted in the report of the Member Secretary, BSLSA. 

The High Court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Sukdeb Saha vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in A.I.R. 2025 S.C. 3458, wherein it held:- “31. Mental health is an integral component of the right to life Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has, in a consistent line of precedents, affirmed that the right to life does not mean mere animal existence, but a life of dignity, autonomy, and well-being. Mental health is central to this vision. In Shatrughan Chauhan vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0043/2014 : 2014:INSC:46: (2014) 3 SCC 1 and Navtej Singh Johar vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0947/2018 2018:INSC:790 : (2018) 10 SCC 1, this Court recognised mental integrity, psychological autonomy, and freedom from degrading treatment as essential facets of human dignity Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, a rights- based legislation, reinforces this constitutional mandate by recognising every person's right to access mental healthcare and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment in mental health settings. Section 18 of the MH Act guarantees mental health services to all, and Section 115 of the MH Act explicitly decriminalises attempted suicide, acknowledging the need for care and support rather than punishment. These provisions read with judicial precedents reflect a broader constitutional vision that mandates a responsive legal framework to prevent self-harm and promote well-being, particularly among vulnerable populations such as students and youth.”

In Gaurav Kumar Bansal vs. Mr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. (CONMT. PET. (C) No. 1653/2018 in W.P.(C) No. 412/2016), the Supreme Court, by order dated February 25, 2019, held:- “7. For ensuring availability of rehabilitation halfway homes in the districts: (i) State Governments must either expand their existing homes or construct new homes at their own cost and provide facilities as per the ‘Rehabilitation Homes’ Guidelines approved by the Supreme Court. (ii) Another way out is for the States/UTs to encourage NGOs in their States to set up rehabilitation homes or even expand the existing homes run by NGOs. The State Government may provide financial assistance to the NGOs towards this objective or seek the assistance of the Central Government for the same. The Central Government already has a scheme to fund such NGOs on the recommendation of State Government (Project Halfway Homes). The State Governments may give wide publicity to this Central scheme. 8. In certain States, some NGOs/community-based organizations have been providing remarkable services in the area of rehabilitation of mentally ill persons. The State Governments may involve them to supplement their own efforts. 9. Assistance is required to be elicited from police departments of various States, in order to register FIRs and make efforts to trace the families of de-institutionalized persons, and to include the details of such persons in national missing persons databases.

Prior to this, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar had passed 2-page long order dated January 6, 2022 in Akanksha Malviya vs. The Union of India & Ors., a case of 2021 wherein, notice was issued considering pryer for issuance of a writ in the nature of a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ(s) or order(s) or direction(s) commanding the Respondents to establish a legitimate and functional State Mental Health Authority in adherence with Section 45 and Section 55 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The same bench passed a 4-page long order dated February 10, 2022, wherein it noted that Mental Health Care Act, 2017 was notified on April 7, 2017. The object and purpose of the Act was to provide for mental healthcare and services for persons with mental illness. Also to protect, promote and fulfil the rights of such persons during delivery of mental healthcare. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters. Chapter-VIII specifically deals with the establishment and composition of the State Authority, to be termed as the “State Mental Health Authority”. The composition of such authority in terms of Section-46 has to be of certain persons specified therein. The functions of the authority, as specified under Section-55 of the Act, are, inter alia, to- (a) develop quality and service provision norms for different types of mental health establishments in the State; (b) supervise all mental health establishments in the State and receive complaints about deficiencies in provision of services; (c) register clinical psychologists, mental health nurses and psychiatric social workers in the State to work as mental health professionals, and publish the list of such registered mental health professionals in such manner as may be specified by regulations by the State Authority; (d) train all relevant persons including law enforcement officials, mental health professionals and other health professionals about the provisions and implementation of this Act; (e) discharge such other functions with respect to matters relating to mental health as the State Government may decide. 

The order reads: "Shockingly, as is now evident from the affidavit filed by the State, the said authority has yet not been constituted. Also as to whether there was one under the repealed Mental Health Act, 1987 is not clear from the response....The purpose behind the enactment, as we have already noticed, is to provide mental healthcare and services to persons in need whose mental condition stands determined in terms of Chapter-II of the Act. We notice that such step for establishing the authority commenced only in the year 2020, that too, with the publication of an advertisement in the Newspaper and since then nothing has been done to expedite the process. Even the affidavit filed does not disclose the time-limit within which such process would be completed. We refer to para 8 of affidavit dated 22.01.2022 filed by Additional Director, Health, Bihar, Patna. The averments are as vague as they can be....It is in this backdrop, we are constrained to direct the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, to forthwith take all steps ensuring establishment of the authority as stipulated under Section-45 of the Act. Let an affidavit of compliance indicating the latest status, be filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, before the next date. We also expect the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar to indicate the steps taken for complying with the other provisions of the Statute; the deficiencies pointed out by the petitioner in the writ petition; and the suggestion given for proper and effective implementation on expeditious basis."
 
The same bench passed a 9-page long order dated April 1, 2022. It reiterated the importance and significancethe the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. The Act is divided into XVI Chapters containing 126 Sections. Chapter III deals with advance directive; Chapter V deals with rights of persons with mental illness; Chapter VI deals with duties of appropriate Government; Chapter VII deals with constitution of Central Mental Health Authority; Chapter IX deals with Finance, Accounts and Audit; Chapter X deals with establishment of Mental Health; Chapter XI deals with Mental Health Review Board; Chapter XII deals with admission, treatment and discharge; Chapter XIII deals with responsibilities of other agencies. In terms of Section 5 of Chapter III, every person, who is not a minor, shall have a right to make an advance directive in writing, specifying the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness. 

The order wondered as to "Whether there is any mechanism in place dealing with mandatory requirement of the statute or directives whereby and whereunder the person has a right to specify in advance the manner in which he wishes to be cared for and not to be cared for and treated for a mental illness and whether an Online Register as mandated by Section 7 has been set up and is being duly maintained? What are the steps undertaken to be made or already stand taken with respect to the right of community living for persons with mental illness under Section 19 where they have rights to not remain in Mental Health Establishments etc.? The Act under Section 20 grants a right of protection from cruel inhuman and degrading treatment and Section 21 provides for a right to equality and non-discrimination. Whether the staffs of already existing mental health institutions have been trained in accordance with these provisions to ensure the realization of these important basic rights? What are the steps taken in fulfillment of the duties imposed on the appropriate Government in this case, the Government of Bihar, vide Chapter VI, in particular Sections 29 and 31 which deal with promotion of mental health and preventive programme and human resource development and training respectively? The State to furnish detailed reasons as to why the time line provided under Section 45 of the Act for the establishment of the Mental Health Authority (nine months) has not been complied with, as noted in our order dated 10.02.2022. As also we note that the order dated 25.02.2022 directed the process to be expedited. What are the steps that have been taken in furtherance thereof. Section 66 of the Act provides the procedure for inspection and enquiry of mental health establishments. Details of inspection and enquiry as also under Section 67, carried out be furnished by the relevant authority before the next date. Section 100 of the Act details duties of Police Officers in respect of persons with mental illness. Whether any training, awareness or sensitization programme has been undertaken to ensure that police officers are able to carry out their duties towards this vulnerable group of people? Section 103 is titled as ‘prisoners with mental illness’. The authorities to furnish particulars of such prisoners as also the steps taken to ensure preparedness of prisons for accepting such
inmates? Section 123 grants power to State Authority to make regulations with respect to minimum standard of quality etc. Whether the State has framed such Rules? If in the affirmative, a copy of the said Rules be supplied to the Court." 

The order reads: "We may also note that the importance of this Act is reflected also in Section 125 where the Central Government has been bestowed with the power to remove any difficulty arising in giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Although there was a limitation to this section of two years from the date of commencement of the Act, the legislative intent is clearly that of furthering and improving the mental health institutions and their regulations. It is saddening to see that the State of Bihar even after the passing of more than four and half years has not taken adequate steps in line with the intention of the Parliament. Even more so, in the light of the fact that the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) was launched by the Central Government as far as back in 1982 with the following objectives:-
1. To ensure the availability and accessibility of minimum mental healthcare for all in the foreseeable future, particularly to the most vulnerable and underprivileged sections of the population;
2. To encourage the application of mental health knowledge in general healthcare and in social development; and
3. To promote community participation in the mental health service development and to stimulate efforts towards self-help in the community;
And yet the entire State of Bihar since after its bifurcation has only one functioning unit and even for that sufficient particulars have not been furnished. It is only after a public spirited person approaches this Court that action is initiated albeit with continued lethargy." 

The State did not address any one of the issues in its affidavit dated March 23, 2022 filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar. From the supplementary counter affidavit dated March 23, 2022, filed by the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, it was not clear as to whether the provisions of Rule 6 of the Mental Healthcare (State Mental Health Authority) Rules, 2018 has been complied with. It was not clear as to whether the provisions of Section 62 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 stands complied with. The Court noted that there is only one mental health establishment registered within the State of Bihar although almost 1/10th people of India live within the State of Bihar. 

The Court directed Respondent No. 1, namely, the Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to file an affidavit dealing with each one of the averments made in the petition, also specifying as to whether each one of the statutory provisions and the rules framed thereunder were complied with. 

The 2-page long order dated April 7, 2022 noted that Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar filed his supplementary counter affidavit dated April 7, 2022 vide notification dated April 6, 2022 constituting State Mental Health Authority, as envisaged under the provisions of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017. This exercise was undertaken only pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court vide order dated April 1, 2022. The counter affidavit stated that a 272 bedded new hospital at BIMHANS, Koilwar at the cost of Rs. 128.96 Crores was being set up.

Notably, the High Court had passed orders dated February 13, 2014 and January 5, 2015 In the matter of News Reports published in The Hindustan Times, Patna Dated 24/10/2013 vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 21462 of 2013. 

In its order dated June 27, 2022, the Court noted that Additional Solicitor General "placed on record a chart indicating the budgetary allocation with respect to the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) under Flexible Pool for Non Communicable Diseases (NCDs) under NHM during the period from 2018-19 to 2020-21. Evidently, there is reduction in the budgetary allocation with each succeeding year. We are informed that only on account of non-utilization of funds, the Central Government has taken such a measure."

In its order dated September 27, 2022, it was recorded that the State Mental Health Review Board and State Mental Health Fund was constituted. In its order dated November 16, 2022, it recorded that Review
Board as envisaged under Section 73 of the Mental Health Act, 2017 was not constituted. There were more than 11.2 million persons, moreso below the age of 35 years, who are suffering from several psychiatric disorders as defined under the Act.  

In its 2-page long order dated December 8, 2023, High Court's Division Bench of Justices K. Vinod Chandran and Rajiv Roy recorded the affidavit dated October 12, 2023 by the respondent pointed out that the State Mental Health Authority and the State Mental Health Review Board have been constituted. The Mental Health Review Board have been constituted in 9 divisional headquarters of the State, i.e. Patna, Chapra, Gaya, Muzzaffarpur, Bhagalpur, Purnea, Saharsa and Munger under the Chairmanship of District and Sessions Judges, the Districts which is the divisional headquarters. The order reads: "The District Judges of the divisional headquarters afore-mentioned shall file a report on the intimation of such constitution having been received by them and the steps taken to convene the Review Board, within a period of four weeks from today. The Registry shall issue a certified copy of this order to the above said District Judges at the divisional headquarters, who shall file a report through the Registrar General."

The High Court' Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, passed a 2-page long order dated November 22, 2024 recorded that out of the nine Divisional Commissionerates, in eight Commissionerates Mental Health Review Boards have been constituted, however, in Saran, no Board has been constituted for reason of the district having no medical colleges and no psychiatrist. The Court observed: "2. We do not think that this is a reason to not constitute a Board for the said Divisional Commissionerate also. 3. The learned AAG submits that steps will be taken to constitute a Board in the said district also within a period of two weeks." 

In its 3-page long order dated March 7, 2025, High Court's of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy recorded that mere setting up of Review Boards in different Commissionerates would not be of any avail to the people suffering from mental health, unless funds were allocated for the purpose. There was no allocation of funds towards making the Mental Health Review Boards functional, thus, rendering the Boards in nine Commissionerates to be in existence only on paper. For effective implementation of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the State must take pro-active steps with respect to prisoners who are suffering from mental health issues. There is no updated report on behalf of the State with respect to the number of half-way homes, shelter accommodation; supported accommodation and other places where persons suffering from mental health issues could be sent. The need for steps for the outreach of the Act to jail inmates remained unaddressed.

The same bench passed a 3-page long order dated May 16, 2025, wherein, it noted that for smooth functioning of the State Mental Health Tribunal, a fund of Rs. 40 lacs was allocated by the Health Department for 2025-26. The order reads: "The allocation of funds to Mental Health Review Boards shall be done after collating all information with respect to such Boards and the proposal of work which can be handed over or entrusted to them. Such allocation also shall be made without wastage of any further time. 4. With respect to the query of the Court regarding outreach of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 to jail inmates and the infrastructure in the shape of half-way homes and accommodation shelters, it appears that only information is being sought from the relevant quarters." It recorded that the allocated fund would be meaningless unless it comes to the Board along with the proposal of work programme which was mandated under Section 53(1)(c) of the Act of 2017. 6. Similarly, even with Review Boards, such allocation of fund and proposal for work programme has to be supplied by the State. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 and Mental Healthcare (Rights of Persons with Mental Illness) Rules, 2018 command for setting up of a mental health establishment in at-least one prison in the State. It concluded: "8. It has rightly been pointed out that there is no information in the affidavit regarding compliance of such requirement under the Act and the Rules."

Significantly, it was after 38 order have been passed by the High Court that in the case filed on November 20, 2021 and registered on November 25, 2021, that a PIL entitled "In Court on its own motion Regarding matter relates to the Inspection Report" was filed in mid-February 2026.
  

Justice Sandeep Kumar directs Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to compensate the petitioner reasonably in a NDPS case

In Nurul Hasan Khan vs. Union of India through the Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (D.R.I) New Delhi & Ors. (2025), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 20-page long judgement dated October 17, 2025 concluded:''34. Considering the fact that the petitioner was deprived of his vehicle (crane) unlawfully which was his source of income and livelihood and the crane of the petitioner was sold behind his back without following the due process of law, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of justice that it is a fit case to compensate the petitioner reasonably.'' He allowed the criminal appeal. The other two respondents were:Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Regional Unit, Patna and Intelligence Officer, D.R.I., Regional Unit, Patna.

Justice Kumar directed the respondent authorities to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- which has been valued by the respondent authorities with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the vehicle has been seized. The payment must be made in favour of the petitioner within eight weeks from today. He concluded:''this Court directs the respondent authorities to pay a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) in addition to the aforementioned amount, as indicated in the proceeding paragraph, to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.''

The judgement observed:''35. This Court has noticed that the respondents on the one hand had found that the petitioner or his driver/helper were not involved in the crime and on the other hand they have moved an application for pre-trial disposal of the crane of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in disposing the crane of the petitioner without any notice to him as wholly arbitrary. The respondents have further failed to inform the learned trial court that the actual owner of the crane, having not been arrayed as an accused, was not before it and the order of the disposal of the crane was passed to the prejudice of the petitioner.'' 

The criminal writ application was filed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to pay appropriate compensation to the petitioner for arbitrarily and illegally disposing/selling of the crane of the petitioner bearing registration No. BR2H 6948. According to the petitioner, the action of the respondent authorities in illegally disposing /selling of the said crane was in complete violation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 as well as the settled principle of law. 

It was the case of the petitioner that he was the owner of a crane bearing registration no. BR2H 6948, which was used for towing vehicles as his source of income. According to the petitioner, on June 6, 2019, the Chowkidar of Aurangabad (M) Police Station called the petitioner for towing a Bolero Pickup van which had met with an accident at Karhara More, G.T. road en route to Patna and upon his request, the petitioner provided his crane for towing of the said Bolero to Patna.

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that based upon a secret information, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted the Bolero Pick-up van bearing registration No. BR-6GD/5751 near D.R.M. Office, Danapur Station, Saguna More Road, Patna, which was being towed by the crane belonging to the petitioner. In the crane, two persons were present namely, Md. Salamat Murtuza, who was the driver of the said crane and Md. Faiz, who was the khalasi (helper) of the said crane. Upon search of the Bolero pickup Van which was being towed by the petitioner's crane, the D.R.I. officials seized 47 crates of mangoes and 06 jute and 28 plastics sacks containing a total of 141 brown coloured packets containing substance believed to be ganja from the said Bolero Pick up van. He also submitted that thereafter the statements of said two persons namely, Salamat Murtuza and Md. Faiz were recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, wherein they had stated that they did not have any knowledge about the recovered ganja and the same was not recovered from their conscious possession and they were merely towing the Bolero pickup van on the direction of the owner of the said crane. On being called by the D.R.I officials, the petitioner appeared in the D.R.I office and his statement was also recorded under section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act, in which he had stated that he did not have any knowledge about the said ganja recovered from the Bolero pick-up van which had met with an accident and he was told that mangoes were loaded on it.

It was submitted by the senior counsel for the petitioner that the crane of the petitioner was seized on June 7, 2019 and the statement of the petitioner was recorded on the same day and thereafter the prosecution report was submitted on June 8, 2019 wherein it was categorically stated that based on the evidence gathered during the proceedings and the statements of the petitioner, his driver and khalasi(heloper), it was found that neither the petitioner nor his driver or khalasi were involved in the illicit trade of ganja but on June 1, 2019, the same officer i.e. respondent no. 3, filed an application for pre-trial disposal of the said crane besides the Bolero Pick up without any intimation or notice to the petitioner and ultimately, by an order dated June 3, 2019 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Patna in Special Case No. 59 of 2019, the respondent no.3 was granted permission for disposing the crane of the petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the crane of the petitioner was unlawfully auction sold by the respondents.

The petitioner's senior counsel submitted that since the petitioner or his driver and Khalasi (helper) were not made accused in the instant case by the D.R.I., it was incumbent upon the DRI to release the crane of petitioner seized by them since it was not liable to be confiscated. Thus, the respondents by seizing the crane, after coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the present case, have committed a gross illegality. He also submitted b the respondents while disposing of the crane of the petitioner have grossly violated section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act, which deals with disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotic substance. Therefore, it was the submission of the petitioner that the respondents in the garb of seized narcotics drugs and psychotic substance disposed of the crane of the petitioner by way of auction sold, which admittedly as per their own version was not involved in illicit trade of ganja. 

The senior counsel submitted that prior to disposing the crane of the petitioner, neither the respondents issued/served any notice to the petitioner nor gave any opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the DRI also did not inform the trial court that neither the petitioner nor his driver and khalasi were found to be involved in the present case and thus the DRI also mislead the trial court and obtained the order dated August 3, 2019 by suppressing the material fact, by which the pre-trial disposal of the crane of the petitioner was allowed. The respondents in their counter affidavit categorically admitted that the involvement of the petitioner in the illicit trade of ganja was not established but the respondents still went ahead and auction sold the crane of the petitioner. 

The senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 52A of the N.D.P.S. Act deals with disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance and in view of the aforesaid section, the action of respondent in disposing of the crane of the petitioner is absolutely illegal, unwarranted and against the provision of the Act. He also submitted that as per the inventory of the seized crane prepared, which is annexed as Annexure-4, the crane was found in good condition, still the respondents under-valued the crane for Rs. 3,00,000/- and sold it on a throw away price. The respondents have disposed of the crane of the petitioner and this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after passing of the order dated December 2, 2021. Therefore, the action of respondents in auction selling of the crane of the petitioner was blatantly illegal, arbitrary and has caused great suffering to the petitioner as well as affected his livelihood as the operation of crane was his source of income and same has caused physical, mental agony and financial loss to the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted that the petitioner was liable to be fairly and adequately compensated by the respondents for illegally and arbitrarily auction selling his crane.

A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent - D.R.I. wherein the facts relating to the N.D.P.S. has been mentioned and thereafter, it was stated that based on the evidences gathered such as, CDRs. of the petitioner, his driver and khalasi were scientifically analyzed and on the basis of the analysis it was found that no connection could be established between the petitioner, his driver and khalasi and the actual owner of the seized contraband i.e. ganja. 

Justice Kumar's judgement quoted the relevant para no.9 of the counter affidavit, which reads:“9. That under the circumstances explained above, on the basis of evidences gathered during the whole proceedings and as per statement of the above said persons drawn under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985, conscious involvement of the above said persons namely Salamat Murutza (driver of the disputed vehicle) and Md. Faiz (khalasi of the disputed vehicle) as well as Nurul Hasan Khan, owner of the said crane in the illicit trade of the Ganja could not be established. Hence, the driver of the crane, his cousin brother and the owner of the crane was not arrested. Hence, they were accordingly released without causing any loss or injury to them with their consent that as and when their presence will be required in course of the investigation of the case, they will accordingly cooperate in the investigation. Intimation for recovery of ganja was prepared and the same was duly intimated to the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special (N.D.P.S. Act) Patna on 10.06.2019.”

The counsel for the respondents submitted that after passing of the order dated August 3, 2019, the D.R.I. had forwarded the matter to the Customs Department to auction the seized goods and thereafter as per the procedure, the reserved price of the crane was fixed on August 13, 2019 by the Joint Pricing Committee. Thereafter, in terms of the provisions of the Disposal Manual, 2019 the aforesaid crane was e-auctioned in favour M/s. Kushwaha Enterprises being the highest bidder and accordingly, the sale was confirmed. Therefore, it is pointed out that the Customs Department did nothing but carry out the orders dated August 3, 2019 of the trial court as per the procedure of the Disposal Manual, 2019. It was also submission of the respondents that the petitioner had approached the trial court for the release of his crane after passing of the order dated August 3, 2019 for pre-trial disposal of the crane. Further, no procedural irregularity was pointed out in the e-auction process which was done as per by Disposal Manual, 2019. Moreover, the crane of the petitioner was towing the Bolero pickup van, in which narcotic substance i.e. ganja was recovered and as such, the crane was the conveyance, which was used to transport the narcotic substance which is liable to be confiscated under section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S. Act and a similar provision was there under section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. 

It was also submitted that the petitioner was never denied that his crane was not transporting/towing the Bolero pickup van from which contraband ganja was recovered and the trial of the case is still gong on and the matter was sub-judice. The crane of the petitioner was auction sold under the order of pre-trial disposal and as such, after completion of the trial, the trial court may order for deposit of the sale amount or its confiscation, on completion of trial and as such, payment of the amount to the petitioner may not be made and if at all ordered, the same may be done after taking appropriate security awaiting the final decision of the trial court. It was submitted that order dated August 3, 2019 by which the pre-trial disposal of the crane of the petitioner was allowed was belatedly challenged by way of filing an interlocutory application before the High Court and the order dated February 2, 2021 by which the trial court had rejected the petition of the petitioner for release of his crane remains unchallenged till date and as such, the relief, as prayed for, was untenable.

The counsel for the respondents had relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Anr. reported as (2016) 3 SCC 379. 

Justice Kumar recorded that pursuant to the order dated November 14, 2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of the Patna High Court, an affidavit was sworn and filed by the Joint Commissioner, Customs wherein the procedure adopted for auctioning the crane of the petitioner was brought on record.

Justice Kumar quoted Paragraph nos. 13 to 16 of the counte  affidavit filed by the Assistant Commissioner (Legal, Customs (P), Patna. It reads: “13. That Notification No.75/2003-Customs (N.T.) dated 12.09.2003 has been issued under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 which stipulates the rate of interest payable by the Department to the applicant on any delayed refund beyond 3 months payable by the Department. 14. That it is further humbly stated that Notification No.33/2016-Customs (N.T.) dated 01.03.2016, which prescribes the applicable rate of interest payable by a person liable to pay any duty under the Customs Act, 1962, shall, in addition to such duty be liable to pay interest, if any, at the rate fixed on delayed payment which has been fixed vide the aforesaid Notification and is being respectfully submitted for the kind perusal and consideration of this Hon'ble Court. 15. That it is further humbly stated that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of M/s Ajay Industrial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs (writ petition No. 13314 of 2024) vide Judgment dated 15.10.2024 were please to grant 6% interest. 16. That the Department undertakes to ensure that such lapses do not reoccur in future and necessary steps are being taken to streamline internal communication processes. Necessary Department action has been initiated against the officers concerned for grave lapses.”

Justice Kumar observed: ''24. In the present case, the D.R.I. had intercepted a Bolero vehicle was being towed by the crane of the petitioner and from the aforesaid Bolero vehicle ganja was recovered. Consequently, a criminal case was initiated under the N.D.P.S. Act wherein along with seized articles, the crane of the petitioner was also seized. After an investigation, the role of the petitioner and his driver/ helper was not found in the crime. Consequently, they were not arrayed as an accused." 

On August 1, 2019, the Special P.P. had moved an application before the trial court for disposal of the vehicles including the crane of the petitioner. Thereafter, the trial court passed the order dated August 3, 2019 in the Special Case No.59 of 2019. The order reads: “A petition dated 01.08.2019 filed on behalf of the prosecution has been moved today praying therein to pre-trial disposal of (1) Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. BR 06GD-5157 along with the Crane bearing Registration No.BR 2H-6948 on which crates of mangoes was found loaded. (2) 683.8500 Kg Ganja (3) 540 Kg Mangoes, seized in this case, on the basis of authorization of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to the Sp.LPP for obtaining pre-trial disposal order, in which certification of seized goods (Narcotic drugs) had already been done, from the Court's concerned. Heard Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari, the learned Spl.P.P. From perusal of the recved, it transpires that certification of the recovered Narcotic substance and other articles including the vehicles has already been done by Sri Sukul Ram, ACJM-13, Patna whose report, in this regard is already on record. Hence, is the light of submission as prayed for, prayer is allowed. It is therefore, ordered that the concerned authorities are permitted to dispose of the (1) Bolero Pick-up bearing Registration No. BR 06GD-5157 as well as Crane bearing Registration No. BR 2H-6948, (2) 683.8500 Kg Ganja (3) 541 Kg Mangoes, seized in this case, as per rule.”

Justice Kumar observed: ''26. Pertinently, the petitioner was not arrayed as an accused in the N.D.P.S. case. Being unaware of such an order for disposing of his crane, being passed, the petitioner moved before the trial court seeking release of his vehicle and at that time he came to known about disposal of his crane." 

The order dated December 2, 2021 passed in Special Case No.59 of 2019 reads: “Learned counsel for the petitioner Nurul Hasan submits that in this case a crane bearing registration no. BR 2H 6948 has been seized by DRI Regional Unit Patna on the ground that unclaimed ganja was recovered from accidental Bolero pickup bearing registration no. BR 06GB 5197 which was towed by the crane. It has also been submitted that the crane has no concerned with the alleged ganja and during investigation the petitioner was not found liable to be arrested and was accordingly released by the intelligence officer. In the light of these submissions, it has been prayed that the crane be allowed to be released. Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer by submitting that the petition is not maintainable because this court vide its order dated 03.08.2019 has ordered for disposal of the said crane and Bolero Pickup and along with the seized ganja and all of these have already been disposed of. The said crane has been auctioned sold. Therefore, its release is not possible. On perusal of the second is clear that this court vide its order dated 03.08.2019 itself has allowed for disposal of the said crane. Once the crane has been disposed of it can not be a subject matter of release. As far as the question of realization of amount of sale by its lawful owner is concerned then the petitioner is at liberty to file proper petition at appropriate form. With this observation the petition is disposed off.”

The High Court's judgement dated October 17, 2025 reads: ''27. From the perusal of the afore-quoted orders, it is clear that the present petitioner, who is the owner of the crane in this case, had not been heard before his vehicle i.e. the seized crane in question, was disposed and was subsequently auction sold. The order dated 03.08.2019 wherein the application dated 01.08.2019 was considered only records the appearance of the learned Spl. P.P. therein and neither notice had been issued to the owner of the crane i.e. the present petitioner nor any opportunity has been afforded to him.''

Section 60 of the N.D.P.S. Act reads: “60. Liability of illicit drugs, substances, plants, articles and conveyances to confiscation.- (1) Whenever any offence punishable under this Act has been committed, the narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substance, opium poppy, coca plant, cannabis plant, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which such offence has been committed, shall be liable to confiscation. (2) Any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances lawfully produced, imported inter-State, exported inter-State, imported into India, transported, manufactured, possessed, used, purchased or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances which is liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) and the receptacles, packages and coverings in which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, materials, apparatus or utensils liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) is found, and the other contents, if any, of such receptacles or packages shall likewise be liable to confiscation. (3) Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substances, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.”

Justice Kumar observed:''the Article 300A of the Constitution of India also protects the property of the petitioner and he cannot be deprived of his property save and except in accordance with law.'' His judgement recorded: ''31. In the counter affidavit filed by the D.R.I. it has categorically been stated that upon investigation it was found that the petitioner and his driver/khalasi (helper) were not involved in the illicit trade of ganja and therefore, none of them were arrayed as an accused. 32. Since the petitioner was not an accused in the N.D.P.S. case, it was the duty of the prosecuting agency to bring this fact to the notice of the trial court that the owner of the crane in question was not before it while the court was considering the application for pre-trial disposal of the crane of the petitioner and therefore, the order dated 03.08.2019 ought not to have been passed without hearing the petitioner who is the bona fide owner of the crane in question.''

Notably, Section 60(3) of the N.D.P.S provides for confiscation only when the vehicle in question was knowingly being used for illicit purposes. Section 60 provides that any conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation unless the owner of the conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent or any person in-charge of the conveyance and that all such persons had taken all reasonable precautions against such use. 

It is apparent from the provisions under Section 60 (3) that if the owner of the vehicle/conveyance proves that his vehicle was used in the commission of the offence without his knowledge or connivance and he has taken all reasonable precautions against such use, the conveyance cannot be confiscated despite it being used in the commission of the alleged offense under the NDPS Act.

Supreme Court warns Shailesh Kumar, an advocate from Begusarai

In Shailesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Surya Kant and N.K Singh observed:"The application is totally frivolous. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. However, we refrain to impose exemplary costs on the petitioner at this time. If he will move any such application in future, strict action will be taken against him." It was filed on October 29, 2024 and registered on January 27, 2025 against Court's final judgment and order dated October 5, 2024. The order May 9, 2025 states that the case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated October 5, 2024 in M.A. No.1500/2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 12133/2024 passed by the Supreme Court of India but final judgment and order seems to be unavailable on the Court's website. The order dated February 2, 2024 reads: "The petitioner, who appears in person, is not present. The matter was listed on 10.11.2023 and also on 12.12.2023. However, none had appeared. On two dates, no adverse orders were passed.The special leave petition is dismissed in default."

The order dated August 30, 2024 by bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had recorded: "The petitioner has informed this Court that now he is law graduate. He candidly acknowledges that earlier he had 42 mobile numbers and about 15 bank accounts. That being so, it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that the petitioner appears before the Trial Court and extends full cooperation in the pending proceedings."

Supreme Court's order dated December 12, 2023 shows that the case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated April 12, 2023 in CRWJC No. 2430/2018 passed by the Patna High Court but the judgment and order in question seems to be unavailable on the High Court's website.