Ecocide in Patna: Story of cutting, uprooting, transplanting of over 1000 trees, clearing of forest land in Gardani Bagh for Patna Smart City Project

Upon hearing of a suo motu case In Re: Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges and Ancillary Issues (2025) by Supreme Court's 3-judge bench of bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice A.G. Masih passed a 9-page long order December 29, 2025, stayed Supreme Court's judgement dated November 20 2025 which accepted a new definition of the Aravalli hill ranges that the Union Environment Ministry proposed: that only hills above 100 meters above the local terrain be considered as the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’. 

The order dated December 29 concludes: "12. In the interim, to subserve the ends of complete justice and in the broader public interest, we deem it necessary to direct that the recommendations submitted by the Committee, together with the findings and directions stipulated by this Court in its judgment dated 20.11.2025, be kept in abeyance. This stay shall remain in effect until the present proceedings reach a state of logical finality, ensuring that no irreversible administrative or ecological actions are taken based on the current framework. 13. We further find it necessary, as a matter of abundant caution, to direct unequivocally, as set out in the order dated 09.05.2024, that until further orders, no permission shall be granted for mining, whether it is for new mining leases or renewal of old mining leases, in the ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’ as defined in the FSI Report dated 25.08.2010 without prior permission from this Court." 

Notably, in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. ( I.A. No. 130612 of 2024 and I.A. No. 134904 of 2024 in W.P.(C) 202 of 1995. Order dated July 23, 2024) had directed the Government of Rajasthan to consider the proposals for renewal of mining leases granted for operations in the Aravalli hills/ranges, as identified in the Forest Survey of India (FSI) Report dated August 25, 2010.

The Court's order dated November 20 stated that “Those hills and ranges comprising rocks of the Aravalli Supergroup and Delhi Supergroup, which originated during the Palacoproerozoid to Mesoproterozoic, having a relief higher than 100 meters (+5 Meters) above the surrounding terrain, may be defined as ‘Aravalli Hills and Ranges’”. The new definition treats a landform as part of the Aravalli landscape only if it has at least 100 metres of elevation above the local relief (including the landform’s slopes and adjacent areas). The elevations of physical and geographical features are usually expressed in metres above mean sea level – and are not dependent on the terrain around them. The report of the committee that looked into this that  justified this by noting that the use of elevation alone as a “sole criterion cannot suffice the purpose as taking the average elevation for defining Aravalli Hills and Ranges will lead to inclusion and exclusion error for selection of Aravalli Hills and Ranges in the four States”. This definition implies that at least 90% of the Aravallis will no longer be protected legally. 

These goings on around Aravilli Hills reminiscent of the Patna High Court's anti-tree decision. In Tarumitra Through Shashi Darshan, Coordinator at Tarumitra & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar ,Through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2022), Ptana High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice S. Kumar delivered a 5-page long judgement dated September 19, 2022, wherein it concluded:"We are of the considered view that with the passage of time, the present petition can be closed for in pursuance to the direction issued by the Court, the respondent and more particularly the Forest Department (Municipal Limits, Patna) has taken effective steps for translocating the trees which were necessarily required to be felled for planned development of the city as is evident from the last affidavit dated 5th of September, 2022 filed by the Bihar State Pollution Control Board, a large number of trees stand translocated, the surviving rate is approximately 68%." The writ was filed on July 2, 2019 and registered on July 15, 2019. The second petitioner was Aruni Charitable Trust. Notably, its name appears only in the final judgement. 

Although the High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to highlight the surviving grievances and the consequential issues which may arise for consideration of the authorities, there is nothing in public domain to show that the issue of continued killing and death of trees were brought to the attention of the authorities and the Court. In Bihar's capital district and region wanton destruction of the environment—manifests primarily through systemic ecological degradation, illegal resource extraction, and severe pollution. 

The eight other respondents in Tarumitra case were: Building Construction Department Government of Bihar, Through its Principal Secretary, Department Environment Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, Through its Principal Secretary, Patna Municipal Corporation Through its Commissioner, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Through its Managing Director, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar, Through its Principal Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board Through its Chairman, Patna Smart City Limited Through its Managing Director, Patna Municipal Corporation, and Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Through its Secretary.

The affidavit reads:- “7. That the committee again met on 30.12.2020 when on basis of filed report it was
suggested that survival rate of trees is 88%. The committee decided that some of the plantation activities can be done before next monsoon without waiting for all the constructions to be completed. 8. That on 25.08.2021 when the committee met next, the concerned Executive Engineer, Building Construction Department, Govt. of Bihar, informed that as on 25.08.2021 total of 344 trees had been translocated out of which 277 trees were surviving and as such survival rate was 80%. Further, it was informed that 260 new saplings were also been planted. 9. That the committee next met on 30.01.2022, when it was informed that total of 395 trees had been translocated, out of which 303 trees were surviving and as such survival rate was 76.71%. 10. That the DFO, Patna has also by his report dated 29.07.2020; 13.04.2021; 03.08.2021; & 22.08.2022 had informed the committee about the survival rate of the translocated trees. In the latest report dated 22.08.2022 it is informed that total 412 trees had been translocated out of which 281 are surviving and 131 had died, as such survival rate as on now is around 68%. 11. That a total of 451 trees were to be translocated, out of which 412 trees had been translocated. Further, in Ministers quarter area in addition to landscaping a total of 818 trees is proposed to be planted, out of which 324 trees had already been planted.”

Justice Karol who authored the judgement observed:"we close the present proceeding reserving liberty to the petitioner to highlight the surviving grievances, if any, as also the consequential issues which may arise for consideration of the authorities. We are hopeful that the authorities, being mindful of the ecological balance required to be maintained in the city, accounting for the environmental loss, shall take all steps on expeditious basis. As such the present petition stands disposed of reserving aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14184 of 2019, its first order dated August 21, 2019 the High Court's Division Bench of Justices Shivaji Pandey and Partha Sarthy reads: "In the present case, Tarumitra, which is a registered Society, has filed this application making serious complaint that in the name of creation of multi-storied residential complex, the authorities are uprooting large number of green trees in Gardanibagh area, which would create great environmental problem in future. It has further been stated that the manner in which they are trans-locating the old trees, their survival is difficult and without sustaining forestry, it will be very difficult for human race to survive. Human population can not remain in proper shape in concrete jungle, but we also require forestry for the purpose of proper environment and ambiance. The allegation made in the present application is the manner green trees are being destroyed would bring catastrophe. It is required inclusive sustainable development, which also includes provision for urban forestry. Falling trees, ultimately, will affect the level of underground water and every year, it has been witnesses that the level of underground water is going down. In some areas, it has gone down much below causing serious problem in drinking water." Justice Pandey who authored the order directed the Union of India, State Government, Patna Municipal Corporation, Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Bihar State Pollution Control Board to file their respective detailed counter affidavits. The Court concluded: "In the meantime, the standing tree will not be disturbed by uprooting or passively allow it to die."

In its second order dated January 28, 2020, the High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice Mohit Kumar Shah wrote:"Our order dated 21.08.2019 stands clarified that it shall be open for the State to proceed with the Project up to the stage of obtaining clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, but however without the permission of the Court, no tree would be up-rooted or felled. As to whether up-rooting or fallen of tree is necessary or not, is the only issue which is left to be considered in the present petition, which we shall examine on the next date of hearing. List on 02.03.2020." The order was authored by Chief Justice Karol. He modified the interim order passed by Justice Pandey.  

In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8939 of 2019 filed by Gaurav Kumar Singh, in High Court's third 6-page long order dated March 4, 2020 in Gaurav Kumar Singh vs. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar with Tarumitra vs. The State of Bihar, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Karol and Justice S. Kumar wrote:"Our attention is invited to the second supplementary counter affidavit dated 02.03.2020 sworn by Pawan Kumar, Executive Engineer, Construction Division-1, Building Construction Department, Patna, wherein it stands averred that the State Environmental Assessment Committee, in its meeting, held on 28.02.2020, has decided to issue environmental clearance in respect of construction site Gardanibagh Housing Area Development Work, Patna. From the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Bihar State Pollution Control Board, Patna, it appears that the Board has no objection to the development of the area as also the project. From the affidavit dated 11.09.2019 filed by Shri Pawan Kumar, it is apparent that the area, in question, is sought to be developed in terms of the order dated 26.07.2019 issued by the Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of Bihar, as also its subsequent modification. The project is for construction of residential complexes of various agencies under the Government of Bihar. The residential quarters and bungalows are to be constructed by demolishing the existing construction as per the master-plan approved by the State Government without involving any change in the land use." 

Justice Karol who authored the order added:"From the affidavit, it is also clear that the environmental clearance are either underway or have been proceeded by the authorities. The ‘Guideline for developing greenbelts 2000’ issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, also stands complied with. Under the proposed construction, approximately 365 numbers of trees are to be relocated and in lieu thereof 1119 new trees are to be planted. However, 384 trees are to be retained. At this juncture, we may also observe that way back in the year 1912, the land, in question, was acquired/earmarked for the purpose of Government quarters and offices. As such, the purpose is not to be changed/altered and is within the stipulations prescribed under the master-plan of Patna, 2031, as approved by the Government of Bihar in October, 2016. What the Government wants to do is to demolish the century old structures, thus far used for housing Government employees and instead of refurbishing the same, re-construction the area by building multi-storied apartments. Thus, the growth stipulated and postulated is vertical instead of horizontal. The project has complete provision for water conservation, recharge of ground water, disposal of garbage, maintenance of greenery, etc. Approximately, 20 per cent of the area of the land under the new
project is to be left as a green area with adequate parking space. Orally, we are informed by Shri Lalit Kishore, learned Advocate General that for redeveloping of 700 single storied Government houses as new modern residential complexes, process for issuance of tenders already stands completed and all environmental clearance will be obtained. The work is likely to be allotted to the successful bidder in the near future. As such, in our considered view, we see no hindrance in allowing the Government to proceed with the same."

Justice Karol further wrote:" there is one issue of public concern which needs attention/monitoring by the Court and that being as to how best and who would monitor the relocation/re-transplantation of the old trees as also afforestation of new trees. This, in our considered view, it can best be done with the monitoring of a committee of experts, including the learned counsels assisting the Court in these petitions.
As such, we constitute a Committee comprising of: (a) Conservator of Forest, Government of Bihar; (b) Chief Engineer, Building and Construction Department; (c) Member Secretary, Bihar State Pollution Control Board; (d) Secretary of State Environmental Impact Assessment Committee; (e) Shri Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13; (f) Shri Shashwat, Advocate; (g) Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate and (h) Ms. Binita Singh, Advocate. Needless to add, the State shall provide all facilities to the committee. The Conservator of Forest, Government of Bihar shall be the Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Bihar State Pollution Control Board shall be the Secretary of the Committee. We also notice that the State Government has its novel programme whereby has already planted 22.2 crores saplings in the State of Bihar. The Committee shall submit its report within a period of six months. List on 21.09.2020. It shall be open for the Government to proceed with the project and commence construction in accordance with law. Equally, it shall be open for the successful bidder to commence construction as per sanctioned plans."

In its fourth 2-page long order dated December 8, 2020, the same bench wrote:"We find the order dated 4th of March, 2020 has yet not been complied with. We are informed that the Committee has yet to prepare its report. Let needful be positively done within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the Members of the Committee shall remain present in Court through virtual mode. List on 19th of January, 2021."

In its penultimate order dated August 2, 2022, same bench wrote:"Let all the reports, including fresh evaluation report of the committee constituted by this Court in terms of order dated 04.03.2020 be filed within a period of four weeks from today. List this case on 6th of September, 2022."

The story of the felling and uprooting of 1000 trees and clearing of the forest land by the government in Gardani Bagh, Patna for the Patna Smart City Project is a story of institutional complicity in environmental destruction. There were approximately 1000 different variants of biomass in the plantation. It seemed impossible to transplant these rare species of biomass. 

Notably, Tarumitra;s case was filed after Gaurav Kumar Singh's case which was filed on April 3, 2019 and registered on April 22, 2019. It was heard along with Tarumita's case on few occasions but its name does not appear in the final judgement dated September 19, 2019. But it was also disposed of on the same day (September 19, 2019) but by a separate but almost similar 5-page long judgement. Justice Karol who authored the judgement in Gaurav Kumar Singh's case as well observed:"we close the present proceeding reserving liberty to the petitioner to highlight the surviving grievances, if any, as also the consequential issues which may arise for consideration of the authorities. We are hopeful that the authorities, being mindful of the ecological balance required to be maintained in the city, accounting for the environmental loss, shall take all steps on expeditious basis. As such the present petition stands disposed of reserving aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." 

By now it is crystal clear that platitudes are inadequate to reverse ongoing environmental loss and ecocide.  

Ecocide is a crime in 11 countries. Vietnam has codified ecocide in its domestic law. It became the first country to do so. Article 278 of the Criminal Code of Vietnam, 1990 states that “Those who, in peacetime or wartime, commit acts of annihilating en-mass population in an area, destroying the source of their livelihood, undermining the cultural and spiritual life of a country, upsetting the foundation of a society to undermine such society, as well as other acts of genocide or acts of ecocide or destroying the natural environment, shall be sentenced to between ten years and twenty years of imprisonment, life imprisonment or capital punishment.”Some 30 countries are contemplating similar legislation." It is apparent that it drew environmental lessons from its war with USA which had used Agent Orange, a chemical weapon based on Dioxins, a persistent organic pollutant. 

Under Article 358 of the Criminal Code Russian Federation, 1996, ecocide is defined as “massive destruction of the fauna and flora, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind".

Under Article 161 of the Penal Code Kazakhstan, 1997, ecocide is defined as “mass destruction of the fauna or flora, pollution of the atmosphere, agricultural or water resources, as well as other acts which have caused or are capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, constitutes a crime against the peace and
security of mankind".

Under Article 374 of the Criminal Code Kyrgyzstan, 1997, ecocide is defined as “mass destruction of the flora and fauna, poisoning of the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, is punishable by deprivation of liberty".

Under Article 400 of the Criminal Code Tajikistan, 1998, ecocide defined as “mass extermination of flora or fauna, poisoning the atmosphere or water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind".

Under Article 409 of the Criminal Code Georgia, 1999, ecocide is defined as "Contamination of atmosphere, land and water resources, mass destruction of flora and fauna or any other action that could have caused ecological disaster - shall be punishable by imprisonment extending from eight to twenty years in
length".

Under Article 131 of Criminal Code Belarus, 1999, ecocide is defined as “mass destruction of the fauna and flora, pollution of the atmosphere and water resources as well as any other act liable to cause an ecological disaster”.

Under Article 441 of Criminal Code Ukraine, 2001, ecocide is defined as "Mass destruction of flora and fauna, poisoning of air or water resources, and also any other actions that may cause an environmental disaster, - shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of eight to fifteen years".

Under Article 136 of the  Penal Code Republic of Moldova, 2002, ecocide is defined as “the deliberate and massive destruction of the fauna and flora, the pollution of the atmosphere or poisoning of water resources, as well as other acts capable of causing an ecological catastrophe, is punishable by deprivation of liberty".

Under Article 394 of the Criminal Code the Republic of Armenia, 2003 defines ecocide as "Mass destruction of flora or fauna, poisoning the environment, the soils or water resources, as well as implementation of other actions causing an ecological catastrophe, is punished with imprisonment for the term of 10 to 15 years". 

The Courts in India seem oblivious of these developments in environmental law and jurisprudence. 

Dr. Gopal Krishna

 

Supreme Court sets aside order on narco-analysis test of accused persons by Justice Sandeep Kumar, rejects Bihar State's submission

In Amlesh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Prasanna B. Varale set aside the 2-page long interim order dated November 9, 2023 by Justice Sandeep Kumar by its 17-page long judgement dated June 9, 2025. Justice Kumar had accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, Vaishali that she would conduct narco-analysis test of all the accused persons (including the Appellant herein) and other witnesses, during the investigation in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Selvi and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263, wherein it was held that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Justice Sanjay Karol observed: "we cannot find a reason in the High Court accepting a submission by the Investigating Officer, stating that they will conduct a narco-analysis test of all the accused persons. Such a submission and its acceptance, is in direct contravention to the judgment of this Court in Selvi (supra), being hit by the protections under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. Moreover, we fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court when adjudicating an application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is settled law that while entertaining an application for grant of bail, the Court has to take into consideration the allegations against the accused; period of custody undergone; nature of evidence and the crime in question; likelihood of influencing witnesses and other such relevant grounds. It does not involve entering into a roving enquiry or accepting the use of involuntary investigative techniques." 

Notably, the order dated November 9, 2023 has recorded that the S.D.P.O. Mahua, Vaisahali had assured the bench of Justice Kumar that "she will take further steps in the investigation to find out details about the missing woman and for that she has further submitted that she will get narco test of all the accused persons and other witnesses, if required in the investigation." The petitioner had filed the case for regular bail  in the High Court on October 6, 2023 in Police Station case of August 2022. It was registered on October 16, 2023.  

Justice Sourendra Pandey who joined as the judge of the High Court from the bar on March 8, 2025 was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner in question on bail. His application for bail was rejected by Justice Pandey's order dated May 1, 2025. 

With regard to the bail application of the appellant, pending if any, Supreme Court's Division Bench observed that it has "to be decided in accordance with law" in its judgement dated June 9, 2025.  

Prior to this on March 26, 2025, Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey passed an order after hearing the counsel for the parties. His order reads: "Call for a report from the Court of learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur with respect to present stage of trial, the number of witnesses to be examined and the expected duration that will take to conclude the trial in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 545 of 2022. 3. Put up this case on 23.04.2025."

The petitioner is in judicial custody since June 5, 2023. He was made accused in Mahua P.S. Case No. 545 of 2022 dated 24.08.2022 registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act but he was chargesheeted under Sections 341, 342, 323, 498(A), 364, 120(B), 302, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was married to the sister of the informant on December 11, 2020. There was demand of dowry being made by the in laws and the informant’s sister was being tortured. It was alleged that on August 22, 2022 informant’s brother-in-law stated that petitioner had called and informed that his sister had escaped. Subsequently, on the application of the informant the FIR was registered against five named accused persons. The APP for the State stated that the wife of the petitioner was admittedly with the petitioner when she went missing and despite admitting that the wife of the petitioner went missing on August 21, 2022, a Sanha was registered on August 28, 2022 to cover up the misdeeds although the FIR was already lodged against the petitioner and another on August 24, 2022 by the brother of the victim. The APP also pointed that in his confessional statement the petitioner described  how he killed his wife and thrown her body in the Saryu River. 

Notably, the mother, father and brothers of Amlesh Kumar, the appellant, a resident of Fatehpur Pakari, Mahua, Vaishali have been granted bail by the High Court. The appellant's prayer for regular bail was rejected vide Order dated August 1, 2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in B.P.No.1141 of 2023. The Court was not inclined to grant bail on the basis of the allegations made in the FIR, as well as the confessional statements of the co-accused, who stated that they had thrown the missing person in the river Saryu on the intervening night of the 21st and 22nd August 22, 2022. Dissatisfied with the order of the Sessions Judge, the appellant approached the High Court for grant of a regular bail vide Crl. Misc. No.71293 of 2023. By the impugned interim Order, the High Court accepted the submission of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahua, that she will conduct a narco-analysis test of all the accused persons.  

The order dated August 30, 2024 by Justice Partha Sarthy bench of the High Court recorded that the counsel for the petitioner submitted that an application for bail arising out of this very F.I.R., has been decided by this Court by order dated June 5, 2023 in Kailash Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., (Cr. Misc. no. 17656 of 2023). The order referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated January 19, 2024 passed in Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha (Cr. Appeal no. 303 of 2024), and directed that the case should be put up before appropriate Bench.

In a subsequent order dated October 25, 2024, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad recorded: "It is pointed out that earlier the predecessor Court had passed an order on 09.11.2023 and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed a special leave petition being Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 9701 of 2024 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stayed the impugned order dated 09.11.2023. It is his submission that the order dated 09.11.2023 is altogether on a different issue and the pendency of the SLP in the Hon’ble Supreme Court as against the said order would not have any impact on the hearing of the bail petition on its own merit, therefore, he would request this Court to hear the bail petition of the petitioner on its own merit...In the meantime, learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to apprise his submissions to the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the matter is pending against the order dated 09.11.2023." 

In its judgement dated June 9, 2025 authored by Justice Karol, the Supreme Court examined the order dated November 9, 2023 by Justice Kumar, set it aside and allowed the appeal. The Court held that an accused person does not have an indefeasible right to seek a narco-analysis test to lead the evidence. This decision assumes significance because it has brought clarity to the law following several conflicting High Court judgements on the issue. He observed that the High Court had exceeded the scope of a bail hearing by approving a narco-analysis test. In Selvi vs. State of Karnataka (2010), the Court has held that a narco-analysis test cannot form the sole basis of conviction.

According to B R Sharma, Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials, a narco-analysis test is an interrogation method whereby a suspect of a crime is injected with a psychoactive drug under controlled conditions to suppress their reasoning power or the ability to determine what is good/bad for themselves. The drug used for this test is sodium pentothal, which is also used in higher dosages for inducing general anesthesia in surgeries. However, conducting such tests on persons accused of committing a crime raises serious questions, vis-à-vis, the constitutional protection granted from compulsion to become a witness against oneself under Article 20(3). The constitutional validity of this test, along with similar tests like the polygraph test, came to be challenged before this Court in Selvi (supra). After an elaborate discussion, this Court (three-Judge Bench) held involuntary administration of this test to be hit by Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. The following principles came to be expounded: 
8.1. Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution are non-derogable and sacrosanct rights to which the judiciary cannot carve out exceptions;
8.2. Involuntary administration of narco-analysis and similar tests is in contravention of the protection given by Article 20(3) of the Constitution, i.e. the right against self-incrimination;
8.3. The results of such involuntary tests cannot be considered as ‘material evidence’ in the eyes of the law;
8.4. Conducting such tests in the absence of consent violates ‘substantive due process’ – which is an essential element required for restraining one’s personal liberty. Permitting such tests may lead to a disproportionate exercise of police powers;
8.5. The boundaries of privacy of a person are also breached when these tests are conducted without consent; and
8.6. For voluntary tests, it must be ensured that appropriate safeguards are in place. Moreover, the results of the same cannot be admitted directly as evidence. Pertinently, any fact or information that is discovered subsequent thereto, with the help of the information supplied in the result, can be admitted into evidence with the aid of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

Justice Karol observed:"...it is clear that under no circumstances, is an involuntary or forced narco-analysis test permissible under law. Consequently, a report of such involuntary  test or information that is discovered subsequently is also not per se admissible as evidence in criminal or other proceedings."

The Patna High Court had allowed narco-analysis tests for all the accused persons in a dowry harassment and kidnapping case after hearing a plea for the grant of regular bail by the accused persons. 

Justice Karol recalled that in similar circumstances, where the High Court had ordered lie detector, brain mapping and narco tests, the Supreme Court in Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datana vs. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 522. observed: “6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, it is surprising to note the present approach adopted by the High Court while considering the bail application. The High Court ordering the above mentioned tests is not only in contravention to the first principles of criminal law jurisprudence but also violates statutory requirements. While adjudicating a bail application, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is the guiding principle wherein the court takes into consideration, inter alia, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual matrix, and therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. However, the court has to only opine as to whether there is a prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police, or rather order specific tests as done in the present case.
7. In the instant case, by ordering the above mentioned tests and venturing into the reports of the same with meticulous details, the High Court has converted the adjudication of a bail matter to that of a mini trial indeed. This assumption of function of a trial court by the High Court is deprecated.”

Justice Karol considered following three issues:
i. Firstly, whether in the attending facts and circumstances, Justice Kumar could have accepted such a submission. 
ii. Secondly, whether a report of a voluntary narco-analysis test can form the sole basis of conviction in the absence of other evidence on record.
iii. Lastly, whether an accused can voluntarily seek a narco-analysis test, as a matter of an indefeasible right. 

With regard the first issue, he observed: "We are not inclined to accept the submission of the Respondent- State that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that narco-analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted. While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21. Therefore, the first question framed is answered in the negative. The High Court has erred in accepting a submission to carry out a narco-analysis test of all accused persons by the Investigating Officer." Supreme Court rejected the submission of the State of Bihar which endorsed Justice's Kumar's interim order.  

With respect to the second issue, the judgement reads:"...a report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards as well in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person. The second question is, therefore, answered in the negative." 

The Court in had considered voluntary narco-analysis tests in Selvi case and opined that the reports thereof cannot be admitted directly into evidence. Information that is discovered, as a consequence thereof, can be admitted with the aid of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 

Justice Karol added:"The evidentiary value of information received through the aid of Section 27 is no longer res integra." The term res integra is something which has not yet been determined or resolved by the authority of a decided case, so that a judge may decide it upon principle alone. 

Justice Karol recalled Court's decision in Vinobhai vs. State of Kerela2025 SCC Online SC 178, which while placing reliance on Manoj Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984 held that in the absence of supporting evidence, a conviction cannot be based solely on such information. It was observed: “8. …..The law relating to the evidentiary value of recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is settled by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of M.P.. Paragraph 22 of the said decision reads: “22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt.”  Therefore, in our view, the appellant's guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Justice Karole led bench was informed that there has been a divergence of views taken by High Courts on the issue as to whether a narco-analysis test can be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Allahabad High Court in Rajesh Talwar vs. CBI; Bombay High Court in Dominic Luis vs. State and Mohd. Samir vs. State; Delhi High Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India; Kerala High Court in Louis vs. State of Kerala; Guajrat High Court in State of Gujarat vs. Sanjay Kumar Kanchanlal Desai and Punjab & Haryana High Court in Navjeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab, have held that an involuntary narco-analysis test cannot be relied on and have taken an overall view of the circumstances when an accused has sought a narco-analysis test himself.

Rajasthan High Court in Sunil Bhatt vs. State has held that the accused can seek a narco-analysis test at a relevant stage in view of the statutory right to lead evidence in defence under Section 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

 

Given the suspect nature of a report of narco-analysis, therefore, this position required clarification. Supreme Court's Division Bench observed: "In our view, as rightly submitted by the learned Amicus, the above view of the Rajasthan High Court cannot be sustained. It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature, and moreover, we find the same to be in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in Selvi (supra). It had been categorically observed: “240. We must also contemplate situations where a threat given by the investigators to conduct any of the impugned tests could prompt a person to make incriminatory statements or to undergo some mental trauma. Especially in cases of individuals from weaker sections of society who are unaware of their fundamental rights and unable to afford legal advice, the mere apprehension of undergoing scientific tests that supposedly reveal the truth could push them to make confessional statements. Hence, the act of threatening to administer the impugned tests could also elicit testimony. It is also quite conceivable that an individual may give his/her consent to undergo the said tests on account of threats, false promises or deception by the investigators. For example, a person may be convinced to give his/her consent after being promised that this would lead to an early release from custody or dropping of charges. However, after the administration of the tests, the investigators may renege on such promises. In such a case the relevant inquiry is not confined to the apparent voluntariness of the act of undergoing the tests, but also includes an examination of the totality of circumstances."
 

It also drew on para 253-264 of the judgement which reads: "We are of the view that an untrammelled right of resorting to the techniques in question will lead to an unnecessary rise in the volume of frivolous litigation before our courts. In light of these conclusions, we hold that no individual should be forcibly subjected to any of the techniques in question, whether in the context of investigation in criminal cases or otherwise. Doing so would amount to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty. However, we do leave room for the voluntary administration of the impugned techniques in the context of criminal justice, provided that certain safeguards are in place. Even when the subject has given consent to undergo any of these tests, the test results by themselves cannot be admitted as evidence because the subject does not exercise conscious control over the responses during the administration of the test. However, any information or material that is subsequently discovered with the help of voluntary administered test results can be admitted in accordance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872.”

 

With regard to the third issue, Justice Karole observed: answered in the following terms:"In view of the above exposition in Selvi (Supra), the third question is answered in the following terms: The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narco-analysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial. However, there is no indefeasible right with the accused to undergo a narco- analysis test, for upon receipt of such an application the concerned Court, must consider the totality of circumstances surrounding the matter, such as free consent, appropriate safeguards etc., authorizing a person to undergo a voluntary narco-analysis test. We deem it appropriate to reproduce and reiterate the guidelines issued in Selvi (Supra) in this regard as follows :
“265. The National Human Rights Commission had published Guidelines for the Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused in 2000. These Guidelines should be strictly adhered to and similar safeguards should be adopted for conducting the “narcoanalysis technique” and the “Brain Electrical Activation Profile” test. The text of these Guidelines has been reproduced below:
(i) No lie detector tests should be administered except on the basis of consent of the accused. An option should be given to the accused whether he wishes to avail such test.
(ii) If the accused volunteers for a lie detector test, he should be given access to a lawyer and the physical,
emotional and legal implication of such a test should be explained to him by the police and his lawyer.
(iii) The consent should be recorded before a Judicial Magistrate.

(iv) During the hearing before the Magistrate, the person alleged to have agreed should be duly represented by a lawyer.
(v) At the hearing, the person in question should also be told in clear terms that the statement that is made shall not be a “confessional” statement to the Magistrate but will have the status of a statement made to the police.
(vi) The Magistrate shall consider all factors relating to the detention including the length of detention and the nature of the interrogation.
(vii) The actual recording of the lie detector test shall be done by an independent agency (such as a hospital) and conducted in the presence of a lawyer.
(viii) A full medical and factual narration of the manner of the information received must be taken on record.” 

 

Justice Karol concluded:"....we have no doubt that the impugned Order cannot be sustained" referring to the interim order dated November 9, 2023. 

Three cases closed and consigned by Patna High Court's division bench led by Justice Ashutosh Kumar

In Chairman, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited vs. Shambhu Prasad Gupta & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy condoned the delay of 740 days in preferring an appeal. Notably, the Court had earlier called for the records of C.W.J.C. No 4961 of 2022 and the contempt petition (M.J.C. No. 2175 of 2023) along with this appeal because a writ petition and contempt petition was kept pending by a Single Judge of the High Court after the State challenged the order passed by the Writ Court. The issue relates to the construction of Rail Over Bridge (ROB) in the Saharsa district. CWJC No. 4961 refers to Shambhu Prasad Gupta vs. The Union of India case.

The writ petitioner had sought a direction to the Authorities/respondents to review and shift the proposed plan of construction of ROB to some more convenient place or to redesign the proposed approach road connecting the ROB to some other place, which would have saved the main market places of Saharsa town from being displaced. The Writ Court had directed the respondents to re-consider shifting or changing the alignments and also include the writ petitioner in its discussions but writ petition was  not included in the meeting held to deliberate upon it. 

The judgement records that the Railway Administration found the plan and the design suggested by the petitioner to be unfeasible for the reason of safety and durability of the ROB.

The writ petitioner submitted that the recalcitrance of the Railway Authorities in not changing the plan or making a deviation in the site plan would only end up in usurpation of land belonging to the landholders but no process, as yet, has been started for acquisition of their lands, thus anticipating that it would be an “acquisition under ambush”, without following the procedures prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 with respect to the safeguards which inheres in the Act, guaranteeing the right to property under Article 300 (A) of the Constitution. 

The division bench observed:"We are afraid such was not the prayer in the writ petition. The writ petitioner had approached this Court only with the prayer for commanding the respondents to review the design of ROB, its alignment and the approach road. We are of the considered view that a mandamus could be issued only for enforcing a right and not for adjudication of rights." 

It further noted:"The technical decisions cannot be interfered with and no Court, in its wisdom, could substitute its opinion or the opinion of a writ petitioner for that of the specific inputs by the technocrats, who have taken an informed decision and have found the suggestions of the writ petitioner to be absolutely unviable." 

In its concluding para, the Court judgement reads: "Under these circumstances, in order to put a decent quietus to all these proceedings, we have examined all the three records, viz., L.P.A. No. 1259 of 2024, C.W.J.C. No 4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No. 2175 of ,2023 and we find that it would be in the interest of everyone that all three are closed and consigned."

Prior to this Justice Sandeep Kumar had heard the case Shambhu Prasad Gupta vs. The Union of India (2022) and passed his first order dated July 6, 2022 saying, "No demolition shall be carried out till the next date of hearing." In his order dated September 5, 2022, he wrote:"In the facts of the case, it is desirable that the respondents meet once and discuss the matter in detail to find out a solution. It is expected that the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur have a meeting and take a decision in the matter considering the facts of the case....The respondents will bring on record the decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur on the next date of hearing. Let this order be communicated to the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department, the Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited and the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur through FAX and e-Mail for its compliance forthwith. And their respective lawyers will also communicate the order of this Court to them. It is expected that the all the facts which have been raised by the petitioner shall considered by the respondents in their meeting."

In his order dated October 18. 2022, he wrote that the counsel for the Railway should apprise the Court "about the decision taken by the authorities so that the construction is made in such manner that public and government do not suffer." In his order dated November 22, 2022 wrote that the counsel for the Railways "will seek instructions from the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur as to minimum time required for comprehensive study of traffic flow and integration of Railway Over Bridge (ROB) with future station development, which has been suggested in the meeting held on 08.11.2022 for construction of Railway Over Bridge (ROB) at Saharsa and possibility of planning of a subway."

In his order dated November 28, 2022, he wrote:"Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Limited has filed a supplementary counter affidavit which is taken on record. Paragraph 7 thereof reads as follows:“7. That, however in view of the observation made by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 05.09.2022, the respondents have reviewed the possibilities of deviation from the alignment of the proposed plan and have come up with the revised new alignment where under both arms of earlier alignments of the proposed plant at T-point Junction of Shenker Chowk (one arm in north direction towards Supaul District via D.B. Road and another one in sought direction towards Bangaon Maheshi via Bengali Bazar) have been removed and now one new arm has been designed under the new alignment which will pass towards Sarharsa Railway station via Sabjimandi, Saharsa which is evident from the General Arrangement of Drawing (GAD) of the new/revised alignment for the proposed ROB. Under the new/revised alignment, the issues involved in the present case have been looked in to (sic) and efforts have been made to sort out those issues.” His order reads: "List this case after three months for further hearing. On the next date of hearing, the Corporation will inform the Court about progress in the construction of the Railway, as per new proposal, as has been quoted above."

In his penultimate order dated January 20, 2025, High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: "A piquant situation has arisen for the reason of several proceedings remaining pending before a learned Single Judge, which in net effect has delayed even the commencement of the work of construction of Road Over Bridge (ROB) at a particular place in the district of Saharsa. One Shambhu Prasad Gupta had approached the High Court vide CWJC No. 4961 of 2022 seeking a direction to the respondents to review and shift the proposed plan of construction of ROB at Level Crossing No. 31 situated near Saharsa Railway Station from its present place to the Level Crossing No. 32, situated near the old bus stand, Ganjala or at some more convenient place/area or to shift or redesign the proposed approach road connecting the ROB to some other place by saving the main market place of Saharsa town. The writ petition was entertained by the learned Single Judge, who thought it to be desirable to direct the respondents to discuss the issue with aforenoted Shambhu Prasad Gupta/writ petitioner and find out a solution." 

The division bench wondered:"We are afraid whether such objections by a citizen could have been entertained. Nonetheless, considering the direction and the expectation of the learned Single Judge, a meeting was held but the writ petitioner was not called in that meeting. However, the other part of the order dated 05.09.2022 indicates that the respondents were asked to bring on record the decision taken by the Additional Chief Secretary, Road Construction Department and the other respondents on the next date of hearing. The writ petition but was kept pending. The records reveal that even though the writ petitioner was not called in any one of the meetings, an attempt was made by the authorities to review the plan and a proposal was formulated which was sent to the Railways for further confirmation before the process of construction could have been resumed. It further appears from the record that the Railways found such changed proposal to be untenable for very many reasons."

The division bench recorded: "Thereafter a contempt petition was filed before the learned Single Judge vide MJC No. 2175 of 2023, which is also pending consideration. However, in the meantime, a supplementary affidavit was filed in the writ petition on behalf of the State stating that in view of the observations made by the learned Single Judge on 05.09.2022, the respondents reviewed the possibilities of deviation from the alignment of the proposed plan and came up with a revised new alignment where under both arms of earlier alignments of the proposed plan at T point junction of Shankar Chowk have been removed and now one new arm has been designed under the new alignment, which will pass towards Saharsa Railway Station via Vegetable Market, Saharsa. This was part of the General Arrangement for Drawing (GAD) of the new revised alignment for the proposed ROB. The supplementary affidavit further indicated that efforts are afoot to sort out the other pending issues as well. The revised GAD was sent to the Railways for affirmation but as noted above the same was not approved. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.11.2022, which is the subject order of appeal, extracted this part of the supplementary affidavit of the respondents and listed the matter for further hearing after three months with a direction that on the next date of hearing, the Corporation will inform the Court about the progress of the construction of the ROB as per new proposal." 

Justice Ashutosh Kumar led bench observed: "we do not find any reason to understand that the order comes in the way of the respondents continuing with their construction process as no embargo has been placed in any one of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, either in the writ petition or in the contempt petition. However, the impact of such orders and the pendency of the writ petition has prevented the respondents and the Railways in continuing with the process of construction of ROB which enures in nobody’s favour. There are certain limitations in reviewing the design of such projects. The safety requirements also have to be taken into account which perhaps cannot be adjudicated in any writ petition. All that the writ petitioner can expect, in any circumstance, is that his grievance is put through the concerned authorities who would take a call and, if possible, formulate a solution which would neither be destructive of the plan nor would cause any inconvenience to the writ petitioner or many others as claimed." 

The division bench concluded: "We, therefore, request the learned Single Judge to decide all the issues and conclude the proceedings within a period of two weeks of the communication of this order to him. To facilitate this process, we direct for the listing of CWJC No. 4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No. 2175 of 2023 before the learned Single Judge, who is hearing the contempt petition, on 27.1.2025 within first five cases. Let this appeal come up for consideration on 04.02.2025."

In his order dated January 27, 2025, Justice Sandeep Kumar wrote: "Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned A.S.G. for the Union of India; Dr. K.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Pul Nigam; Mr. Nadim Seraj and learned counsel for the intervenor; Sri Sanjay Kumar. These matters have been listed before this Court pursuant to the order of the Division Bench dated 20.01.2025 passed in LPA No. 1259 of 2024. Once the writ petition i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 4961 of 2022 was recalled by the Division Bench vide order dated 19.12.2024 passed in LPA No. 1259 of 2024, this Court does not think it desirable to hear the matter again. Let these matters be go out of my list and be placed before Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice for assigning a new Bench." Notably, Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was filed in the High Court on December 13, 2024 and registered December 16, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy passed an order saying: Post along with C.W.J.C. No.4961 of 2022 immediately after holidays."

The order dated February 4, 2025, the division bench of High Court's division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy observed: "Let C.W.J.C. No.4961 of 2022 and M.J.C. No.2175 of 2023 be listed along with this appeal on 10.02.2025."

 

Kerala represents the cause of all the States, States' right to borrow referred to Constitution Bench

On April 1, 2024, in State of Kerala v. Union of India, Justices Surya Kant & K.V. Viswanathan bench of Supreme Court observed that "The main case be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench." The original suit was filed on December 8, 2023. It was registered on January 6. 2024. The arguments were heard and the order was reserved on March 22, 2024. 

The State of Kerala had instituted the original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution of India against the Union of India. It has challenged amended Section 4 of the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003, whereby the Central Government is obligated to ensure that the aggregate debt of the Central Government and the State Governments does not exceed sixty percent of the gross domestic product by the end of Financial Year 2024-25. It challenged Union government's letter dated March 27, 2023 imposing a ‘Net Borrowing Ceiling’ on the State of Kerala, to restrict the maximum possible borrowing the State could make under law. It also challenged Union government's letter dated August 11, 2023 providing its consent to the State of Kerala to raise open market borrowing of Rs 1,330 crores underlining that the total open market borrowing allowed to the Plaintiff for the Financial Year 2023-24 was Rs 21,852 crores.

Under Chapter II, Part XII, Article 293 (1) of the Constitution which deals with "Borrowing by States", the Union of India does not have the power to regulate all the borrowings of a State and conditions can be imposed only on the loans sought from the Union Government. It reads: "293. Borrowing by States- 1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed." It is apparent that Union government has violated this provision of the Constitution by preventing Kerala to pursue its governmental duty under the four corners of Article 293 (1) of the Constitution of India. 

Kerala's cause is the cause of all the States. Meanwhile, Union had agreed to allow borrowing of Rs 13,608 crores if State withdrew its suit. This kind of approach amounts to blackmailing of States by the Union government. Why did Union of India, the defendant put a condition for withdrawal of the suit? Supreme Court rightly disapproved of the condition. There was a logical compulsion for Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan to grant interim relief to Kerala against Union of India challenging limits imposed on State's borrowing capacities. In its 24 page long judgement, the Court records:"The Defendant has already made an offer to allow additional borrowing. In a meeting dated 15.02.2024, the Defendant first offered consent for INR 13,608 crores, out of which INR 11,731 crore was subject to the pre-requisite of withdrawal of the suit, a condition that we disapproved of. Subsequently, in a meeting dated 08.03.2024, the Union offered a consent for INR 5,000 crores. Further, vide circulars dated 08.03.2024 and 19.03.2024, the Union has accorded consent for INR 8,742 crores and INR 4,866 crores respectively, which comes to a sum total of INR 13,608 crores. Even if we assume that the financial hardship of the Plaintiff is partly a result of the Defendant’s Regulations, during the course of hearing this interim application, the concern has been assuaged by the Defendant – Union of India to some extent so as to bail out the Plaintiff – State from the current crisis. The Plaintiff thus has secured substantial relief during the pendency of this interim application." The State could secure "substantial relief" because Kerala, the plaintiff is on strong grounds.

Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud is likely to constitute a Constitution Bench of appropriate strength before July to affirm the recognized rights of the States. The rights of Union of India and States of India are limited by Constitution of India and the principles of constitutionalism.

Question about validity of death penalty was raised in the 7th Lok Sabha

On August 22, 1984, P. Venkatasubbaiah, Union Minister of State the Ministry of Home Affairs informed the 7th Lok Sabha that the power of the President under article 72 of the Constitution to commute a sentence of death is absolute and unfettered and a decision is taken by the President on the merits of each prisoner’s case. During the three year period ending with August 14, 1984 the President was pleased to commute the death sentences of five condemned prisoners. He was replying to a question from Lakshman Mallick who had asked about the the number of death sentences commuted by the President during the last three years; and the guidelines for commuting the death sentences. 

Lakshman Mallick had asked about the the number of death sentences, during the last three years, state-wise and years-wise, confirmed after the appeal rejected by the Supreme Court. The minister informed that as of August 14, 1982, 1983 and 1984, there were a 3, 31 and 8 prisoners respectively, who were executed or the awaiting execution after rejection of their Mercy Petition. The minister provided State-wise and year-wise, who were executed or are awaiting execution after their mercy petitions were rejected by the President during the same Period after rejection of their appeals by the Supreme Court.

Out of the 3 who faced execution in 1982, one was from Maharashtra and 2 were from Delhi. Out of the 31 prisoners who faced execution in 1983, 2 were from Bihar, 1 from Gujarat, 2 from Haryana, 1 from Karnataka, 2 from Madhya Pradesh, 6 from Maharashtra, 5 from Punjab, 1 from Rajasthan, 6 from Tamil Nadu, 3 from Uttar Pradesh and 2 from Delhi. Out of the 8 prisoners who faced execution in 1984, 1 was from Jammu and Kashmir, 1 from Maharashtra, 4 from Punjab, 1 from Tamil Nadu and 1 from Uttar Pradesh.   

He had also asked whether Government have received any comments from the public or expert lawyers regarding its abolition. The minister replied, "No comments from the public or expert lawyers were received after the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 Supreme Court 898) had uphold the validity of the death penalty".

Notably, in Deena v. Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a committee of experts to re-examine whether hanging as a method of execution in capital punishment is in line with constitutional standards, 40 years after this method was upheld.    

Law, Courts and the Constitution

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 

LAW, COURTS AND THE CONSTITUTION

India has one of the oldest legal systems in the world. Its law and jurisprudence stretches back into the centuries, forming a living tradition which has grown and evolved with the lives of its diverse people. India's commitment to law is created in the Constitution which constituted India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic, containing a federal system with a Parliamentary form of Government in the Union and the States, an independent judiciary, guaranteed Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of State Policy containing objectives which though not enforceable in law are fundamental to the governance of the nation.

SOURCES OF LAW

The fountain source of law in India is the Constitution which, in turn, gives due recognition to statutes, case law and customary law consistent with its dispensations. Statutes are enacted by Parliament, State Legislatures and Union Territory Legislatures. There is also a vast body of laws known as subordinate legislation in the form of rules, regulations as well as by-laws made by Central and State Governments and local authorities like Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, Gram Panchayats and other local bodies. This subordinate legislation is made under the authority conferred or delegated either by Parliament or State or Union Territory Legislature concerned. The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all Courts within the territory of India. As India is a land of diversities, local customs and conventions which are not against statute, morality, etc. are to a limited extent also recognised and taken into account by Courts while administering justice in certain spheres.

ENACTMENT OF LAWS

The Indian Parliament is competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the Union List. State Legislatures are competent to make laws on matters enumerated in the State List. While both the Union and the States have power to legislate on matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, only Parliament has power to make laws on matters not included in the State List or the Concurrent List. In the event of repugnancy, laws made by Parliament shall prevail over laws made by State Legislatures, to the extent of the repugnancy. The State law shall be void unless it has received the assent of the President, and in such case, shall prevail in that State.

APPLICABILITY OF LAWS

Laws made by Parliament may extend throughout or in any part of the territory of India and those made by State Legislatures may generally apply only within the territory of the State concerned. Hence, variations are likely to exist from State to State in provisions of law relating to matters falling in the State and Concurrent Lists.

JUDICIARY

One of the unique features of the Indian Constitution is that, notwithstanding the adoption of a federal system and existence of Central Acts and State Acts in their respective spheres, it has generally provided for a single integrated system of Courts to administer both Union and State laws. At the apex of the entire judicial system, exists the Supreme Court of India below which are the High Courts in each State or group of States. Below the High Courts lies a hierarchy of Subordinate Courts. Panchayat Courts also function in some States under various names like Nyaya Panchayat, Panchayat Adalat, Gram Kachheri, etc. to decide civil and criminal disputes of petty and local nature. Different State laws provide for different kinds of jurisdiction of courts. Each State is divided into judicial districts presided over by a District and Sessions Judge, which is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and can try all offences including those punishable with death. The Sessions Judge is the highest judicial authority in a district. Below him, there are Courts of civil jurisdiction, known in different States as Munsifs, Sub-Judges, Civil Judges and the like. Similarly, the criminal judiciary comprises the Chief Judicial Magistrates and Judicial Magistrates of First and Second Class.

CONSTITUTION OF SUPREME COURT

On the 28th of January, 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building which also housed India's Parliament, consisting of the Council of States and the House of the People. It was here, in this Chamber of Princes, that the Federal Court of India had sat for 12 years between 1937 and 1950. This was to be the home of the Supreme Court for years that were to follow until the Supreme Court acquired its own present premises.

The inaugural proceedings were simple but impressive. They began at 9.45 a.m. when the Judges of the Federal Court - Chief Justice Harilal J.Kania and Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar Mukherjea and S.R.Das - took their seats. In attendance were the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Assam, Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and Travancore-Cochin. Along with the Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad were present the Advocate Generals of Bombay, Madras, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad and Madhya Bharat. Present too, were the Prime Minister, other Ministers, Ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of foreign States, a large number of Senior and other Advocates of the Court and other distinguished visitors.

Taking care to ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were over and put under part of the record of the Supreme Court.

After its inauguration on January 28, 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958. The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice. The Central Wing of the building is the Centre Beam of the Scales. In 1979, two New Wings - the East Wing and the West Wing - were added to the complex. In all there are 19 Court Rooms in the various wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the Courts located in the Centre of the Central Wing.

The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges - leaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As the work of the Court increased and arrears of cases began to cumulate, Parliament increased the number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009 and 34 in 2019 (current strength). As the number of the Judges has increased, they sit in smaller Benches of two and three - coming together in larger Benches of 5 and more only when required to do so or to settle a difference of opinion or controversy.

The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice and not more than 33 other Judges appointed by the President of India. Supreme Court Judges retire upon attaining the age of 65 years. In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and must have been, for atleast five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at least 10 years or he must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist. Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court as an Ad-hoc Judge of the Supreme Court and for retired Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges of that Court.

The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways. A Judge of the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in any court of law or before any other authority in India.

The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English only. Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and Supreme Court Rules 2013 are framed under Article 145 of the Constitution to regulate the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court.

SUPREME COURT REGISTRY

The Registry of the Supreme Court is headed by the Secretary General who is assisted in his work by eleven Registrars, and twenty five Additional Registrars etc. Article 146 of the Constitution deals with the appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court Registry.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Attorney General for India is appointed by the President of India under Article 76 of the Constitution and holds office during the pleasure of the President. He must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Attorney General for India to give advice to the Government of India upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of legal character as may be referred or assigned to him by the President. In the performance of his duties, he has the right of audience in all Courts in India as well as the right to take part in the proceedings of Parliament without the right to vote. In discharge of his functions, the Attorney General is assisted by a Solicitor General and twenty three Additional Solicitors General.

SUPREME COURT ADVOCATES

There are three categories of Advocates who are entitled to practise law before the Supreme Court of India:-

(i) SENIOR ADVOCATES

These are Advocates who are designated as Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India or by any High Court. The Court can designate any Advocate, with his consent, as Senior Advocate if in its opinion by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law the said Advocate is deserving of such distinction. A Senior Advocate is not entitled to appear without an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court or without a junior in any other court or tribunal in India. He is also not entitled to accept instructions to draw pleadings or affidavits, advise on evidence or do any drafting work of an analogous kind in any court or tribunal in India or undertake conveyancing work of any kind whatsoever but this prohibition shall not extend to settling any such matter as aforesaid in consultation with a junior.

(ii) ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

Only these Advocates are entitled to file any matter or document before the Supreme Court. They can also file an appearance or act for a party in the Supreme Court.

(iii) OTHER ADVOCATES

These are Advocates whose names are entered on the roll of any State Bar Council maintained under the Advocates Act, 1961 and they can appear and argue any matter on behalf of a party in the Supreme Court but they are not entitled to file any document or matter before the Court.