Supreme Court stays order of Lokpal of India to bring High Court's judges within ambit of Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act

In the matter of IN RE : ORDER DATED 27/01/2025 PASSED BY LOKPAL OF INDIA AND ANCILLIARY ISSUES, a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court issued notice to the Union of India, Registrar, Lokpal of India and the complainant, returnable on March 18, 2025 at 10.30 a.m. The Registrar, Lokpal has been directed to mask the identity of the complainant and serve notice upon the complainant through the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, where the complainant resides. The Court's order reads: "In the meantime there shall be stay of the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Lokpal of India in Complaint No.05/2025. We injunct the complainant from disclosing the name of the Hon'ble Judge against whom he has filed the complaint. The complainant is further directed to keep the complaint strictly confidential. Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel, have graciously offered to assist the Court, since the matter is of a great significance concerning the independence of the judiciary....Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, waives notice for the Union of India. Written submission, if any, may be filed in the meantime."

The Lokpal of India had passed an order on January 27, 2025 after examining two complaints filed by the same complainant against a sitting Additional Judge of a High Court. The complainant alleged that the named judge had influenced the concerned Additional District Judge of a particular State and a Judge of the same High Court who had to deal with the suit filed against the complainant by a private company, to favour that company. It is alleged that the private company was earlier client of the named High Court Judge, while he was practicing as an advocate at the Bar. 

The order of the Lokpal reads:"Recently, we had an occasion to examine a complaint against the previous Chief Justice of India. After examining the relevant provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act. 2013 (for short, the Act of 2013), it was concluded vide order dated 03.01.2025 in Complaint No 255/2024 that the judges of the Supreme Court including the Chief Justice of India even though public servants in terms of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, Act of 1988), are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Because, they do not come within the sweep of the expression public servant predicated in Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. In that, the Supreme Court is a body or adjudicatory authority established in terms of Article 124 of the Constitution of India; and not under an Act of Parliament as such. It was clarified in that decision that the issue of applicability of the stated principle to other courts established by an Act of Parliament was not being discussed."

It observed: "unlike the Supreme Court of India, the High Courts for the concerned State during the pre-constitution period or so to say British India, had been established under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861 enacted by the British Parliament. This Act authorised creation of High Courts in British India, especially in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay through Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch. The Government of India Act. 1935, also passed by the British Parliament, restructured the High Courts which were already functioning in British India regime; and recognized that the High Courts were established by virtue of various Letters Patents and Regulating Act issued by the British Monarch. Pertinently, the Constitution of India. vide Article 214, intrinsically recognises the existence of all the High Courts established under the Act of 1861, the Act of 1935 and the Letters Patents issued by the British Monarch; and restates that there shall be a High Court for each State. In contrast. Article 124 is for "Establishment" and Constitution of the Supreme Court of India, as it was not in existence hitherto. After the Constitution of India came into being, the High Courts established during the British India period, under the Act of 1861 or the Act of 1935 and Letters Patent issued by the British Monarch, continued to function as the High Court of the concerned State enlisted in the First Schedule of the Constitution. Notably, the Act of the Dominion Legislature has been regarded as a Central Act. means an Act of Parliament in terms of Section 3 (7) of the General Clauses Act. 1897. 5. In due course of time, however, the States so formed and specified in the First Schedule of the Constitution. had to be reorganized. Because of reorganization of the States... "

Taking note of the legislative history, the Lokpal of India inferred that the High Court of being an "authority" empowered by law to discharge adjudicatory functions, has been established by an Act of Parliament as a "body" of Judges for that State. Thus. the High Court would qualify the description of at least two juristic entities 'by whatever name called''. out of the eight mentioned in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 established by an Act of Parliament. which are mutually exclusive descriptions owing to use of expression "or" in that provision. It will be too naive to argue that a Judge of a High Court will not come within the ambit of expression "any person" in clause (f) of Section 14(1) of the Act of 2013. The expression "Judge" has always been understood as not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person. The definition of Judge in Section 19 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also the enactment of Anti-Corruption Laws (Amendment) Act. 1964 (Act 40 of 1964) and re-enacted Section 21 with the third category of public servant, including sub-clause (iv) of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act of 1988 — defining expression public servant to mean any Judge. 

The Lokpal of India drew on what is stated on paragraph 35 of the majority view exposited by Justice Shetty in the case of K.Veeraswamy vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655. it is plainly expounded that a Judge of the superior court cannot therefore be excluded from the definition of public servant and would squarely fall within the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (analogous to Act of 1988). Applying the underlying principle and the logic as given in this reported decision, the expression 'any person in Section 14(1)(f) of the Act of 2013 must include a Judge of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament as well. 

It observed that a fortiori, the judges of the High Court would come within the sweep of Section 14 of the Act of 2013 read with Section 2(1)(o) thereof. "We say so also because. the definition of public servant in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act of 2013 explicitly excepts only one category of officials or public servants from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal from amongst the species mentioned in Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in respect of whom the jurisdiction is exercisable by any Court or other authority under the Army Act, 1950, the Airforce Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and the Coast Guard Act,1978. Concededly; the Act of 2013 does not provide for such explicit exception for the judges of the Court established by an Act of Parliament, including Judges of the Constitutional and other Courts established by an Act of Parliament — who must come within the expanse sweep of sub-clause (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the stated Act." 

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in K. Veeraswamy case through its majority opinion ordains that to adequately protect a judge from frivolous prosecution and unnecessary harassment the President of India will consult the Chief Justice of India, who will consider all the material placed before him, tender his advice for giving sanction to launch prosecution or for filing FIR against the judge concerned after being satisfied in the matter, as opined by Justice B.C. Ray in paragraph 12 of the reported decision, while agreeing with the opinion of Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty for himself and Justice M.N.Venkatachaliah (as His Lordship then was). The two Judges, in paragraph 60 of the same reported Judgement, had observed as follows: 

"We therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 CrPC against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of a High Court or the judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter."

The thrust of the exposition of the majority view, is that no criminal case shall be "registered" against a judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or judge of the Supreme Court, unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. 

The Lokpal's order reads: "We are conscious of the fact that a complaint before the Lokpal cannot be stricto sensu equated with a criminal case being registered under Section 154 of CrPC or the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (for short. BNSS). However, considering the scheme of Section 20 of the Act of 2013 on receipt of a complaint and before the Lokpal decides to proceed further by ordering a preliminary inquiry by its inquiry wing or any nominated agency or investigation, it is required to examine whether there exists a prima facie case to proceed further. Such process inevitably involves a probe into the allegations against a Judge of the High Court. For effectuating preliminary inquiry, assistance of specified agency has to be taken who in turn is bestowed with an authority under Section 20 read with Section 27 of the Act of 2013, to obtain comments of the public servant and of the Competent Authority including do questioning of third persons and of official records of the courts, if the allegation against the public servant is concerning any judicial process. Further, this inquiry is and would be a prelude to issue of direction to the investigating agency to register a criminal case against the named public servant and to investigate the same under supervision of Lokpal. Having regard to the consequences emanating from the directions to be issued by the Lokpal under Section 20 of the Act coupled with the dictum in K. Veeraswami's case adverted hitherto, the appropriate course, Ex abundanti cautela, is to abide by the direction given by the majority view of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court and to approach the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India as a pre-condition or quintessence to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Act of 2013."

It was conscious of the fact that "the allegation in this complaint also involves the named Additional District Judge. who is working in a court or body of judges which may have been established by an Act of the State Legislature.  He may be a public servant within the meaning of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but not directly amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal-as not being public servant within the meaning of Section 2(1)(o) read with Section 14 of the Act of 2013. However, eventually if an inquiry is to be ordered against the judge of the High Court. and in that inquiry any incriminatory material emerges against the named Additional District Judge. he can be prosecuted in this very action as being involved in an act of abetting. bribe giving or bribe taking or conspiracy of any allegation of corruption under the 1988 Act, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act of 2013.  A priori. we deem it appropriate to forward the subject complaints and relevant materials received in the Registry in these two matters. to the office of the Hon.ble Chief Justice of India for his kind consideration. Awaiting the guidance of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, consideration of these complaints, for the time being, is deferred until four weeks from today, keeping in mind the statutory time frame to dispose of the complaint in terms of Section 20 (4) of the Act of 2013."

The order concludes: "We make it amply clear that by this order we have decided a singular issue finally - as to whether the Judges of the High Court established by an Act of Parliament come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Act of 2013, in the affirmative. No more and no less. In that, we have not looked into or examined the merits of the allegations at all. The Registry is directed to issue/upload copy of this order by redacting the name of the High Court and of the State including revelation of any description suggestive of giving identity of the person involved, where-ever it occurs in this order, to maintain confidentiality as mandated by the Act of 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. 

The order was passed Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chairperson, Lokpal and Members of Lokpal Justices L Narayana Swamy, Sanjay Yadav, Ritu Raj Awasthi and Sushil Chandra, Pankaj Kumar and Ajay Tirkey. 

Supreme Court Collegium unanimously recommends appointement of Justice K. Vinod Chandran as a judge of the Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on January 7, 2025 unanimously recommended that Justice K. Vinod Chandran be appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Justice Chandran was due to retire as Chief Justice of Patna High Court on April 24, 2025. He is the 16th person from Kerala to become a Supreme Court judge. After the retirement of Justice C.T. Ravikumar on January 5, 2025, there is no judge from Kerala at the Supreme Court.

Justice K. Vinod Chandran was appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court on  November 8, 2011 and was elevated as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on March 29, 2023 and has been functioning as the Chief Justice of that High Court since then. He has served as a Judge of the High Court for more than 11 years and as a Chief Justice of a big High Court for more than a year. 

During his long tenure as a Judge and Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Chandran has acquired significant experience in diverse fields of law. Mr. Justice Chandran stands at 13 in the combined all-India seniority of High Court Judges. In the seniority of Judges hailing from the High Court of Kerala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran stands at 1. 

While recommending his name, the Collegium has taken into consideration the fact that there is no representation on the Bench of the Supreme Court from the High Court of Kerala.

The five-member Supreme Court Collegium is headed by the new Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna.The five-member collegium, which is responsible for recommending judges for the Supreme Court, and High Court judges, comprises of the Chief Justice of India and Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and A S Oka. In a significant reshuffle, a three-member Collegium ahas been established and made responsible for appointing High Court judges, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justices Gavai and Surya Kant.

Justice Ashutosh Kumar, the senior most judge of the Patna High Court is likely to take charge as the Acting Chief Justice of Patna High Court. Justice Kumar has been a judge of the Delhi High Court. He is due to retire on November 24, 2017.  

High Court quashes FIR against Sanjeev Hans, no relief for Gulab Yadav, Lalit in Advocate Gayatri Kumari rape case, matter also pending in Supreme Court

"I am of the view that further proceeding with the case i.e. F.I.R. will result in an abuse of the process of the Court and will not serve the ends of justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that no offence including the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the complaint/F.I.R. has been lodged after a great delay and from reading of the complaint / F.I.R. the story propounded by the complainant/informant appears to be a false and fabricated one", observed Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in his order dated August 6, 2024. 

Justice Kumar concluded: "this criminal writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. vide Rupaspur P.S. Case No.18 of 2023 registered for the offence under sections 323, 341, 376, 376-D, 420, 313, 120-B, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 67 of the Information Technology Act and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the aforesaid F.I.R. including the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate are hereby quashed so far as the present petitioner is concerned." Sanjeev Hans is the present petitioner. 

There are five respondents in the writ filed by Sanjeev Hans namely, Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, Senior Superintendent of Police (SP), Patna, Station House Officer (SHO), Rupaspur Police Station, Patna and Gayatri Kumari, Kataiya, Jamhur, Aurangabad. Ritika Rani was the Advocate for both the State of Bihar and Gayatri Kumari. Gayatri Kumari is the complainant/informant.  

The order of Justice Kumar dated June 21, 2024 revealed that the writ of Sanjeev Hans was heard with the writ of Gayatri Kumari. The nine respondents in the writ filed by Gayatri Kumar are: the State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, DGP, Bihar,  SP, Patna, SHO, Rupaspur, Patna, Gulab Yadav, Sanjeev Hans, Lalit Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sub-Division Sadar Hospital, Danapur, and Incharge Medical Officer, Sub-Division Sadar Hospital, Danapur.  It emerges that the case against Gulab Yadav, Lalit and government officials persists.  

The order has recorded that "From reading of the F.I.R., it appears that the complainant/informant has made allegation against two persons i.e. Gulab Yadav and the present petitioner. The date of occurrence mentioned in the complaint/F.I.R. is from February, 2016 to the date of filing of the complaint petition i.e. 16.11.2021. Initially, the allegations are levelled against Gulab Yadav who is said to have committed rape with the complainant/informant. The name of the petitioner is mentioned for an occurrence which is said to have taken place on 08.07.2017 at a Hotel in Pune alleging that the complainant was sexually assaulted by both the accused persons and Gulab Yadav made a video of the same and thereafter threatened her of making the video viral." 

Justice Sandeep Kumar observed: "I am of the view that the present case is squarely covered with the guidelines provided by the Rajiv Thapar and Others. vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (supra) as the material relied upon by the petitioner is sound and reasonable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality. Thematerials is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. Further, the complainant / informant in her pleadings has not denied the factual aspects which have been found by the Police during enquiry before registration of the F.I.R. and it cannot be justifiably refuted by the complainant/informant. Therefore, I am of the view that further proceeding with the case i.e. F.I.R. will result in an abuse of the process of the Court and will not serve the ends of justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that no offence including the offence of rape is made out against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the complaint / F.I.R. has been lodged after a great delay and from reading of the complaint / F.I.R. the story propounded by the complainant/informant appears to be a false and fabricated one."

The order observes: "The complainant has waited for five years to file the complaint and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delayed filing of the complaint petition." The Court examined the non-compliance of Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.  It relied on Supreme Court's decision in the case of Naim Ahamed vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 55 while dealing with a similar case of a married grown-up woman, who had made allegation of rape against a person. 

The Supreme Court has held “21. In the instant case, the prosecutrix who herself was a married woman having three children, could not be said to have acted under the alleged false promise given by the appellant or under the misconception of fact while giving the consent to have sexual relationship with the appellant. Undisputedly, she continued to have such relationship with him at least for about five years till she gave complaint in the year 2015. Even if the allegations made by her in her deposition before the court, are taken on their face value, then also to construe such allegations as ‘rape’ by the appellant, would be stretching the case too far. The prosecutrix being a married woman and the mother of three children was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and the consequences of the moral or immoral quality of act she was consenting to. Even otherwise, if her entire conduct during the course of such relationship with the accused is closely seen, it appears that she had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused, for whom she had developed liking for him. She had gone to stay with him during the subsistence of her marriage with her husband, to live a better life with the accused. Till the time she was impregnated by the accused in the year 2011, and she gave birth to a male child through the loin of the accused, she did not have any complaint against the accused of he having given false promise to marry her or having cheated her. She also visited the native place of the accused in the year 2012 and came to know that he was a married man having children also, still she continued to live with the accused at another premises without any grievance. She even obtained divorce from her husband by mutual consent in 2014, leaving her three children with her husband. It was only in the year 2015 when some disputes must have taken place between them, that she filed the present complaint. The accused in his further statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. had stated that she had filed the complaint as he refused to fulfill her demand to pay her huge amount. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the prosecutrix had given her consent for the sexual relationship with the appellant under the misconception of fact, so as to hold the appellant guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC.” 

The High Court inferred that "In the present case also, the petitioner herself is a grown-up woman, who is practicing Law and as per her own statement she was in a relationship with Gulab Yadav." It observed: "The complainant was matured and intelligent enough to understand the significance and consequences of the acts of which she was a consenting party. She had consented to have sexual intercourse with Gulab Yadav since 2016 and had a child with him but has subsequently filed the present complaint/F.I.R. making the petitioner as an accused and making allegation against the petitioner that he also committed rape with the complainant/informant."

Notably, the High Court's order records: "it has been argued by the petitioner that he has never been involved with the complainant/informant, but even if he had any sexual intercourse with the complainant/informant, it must have been consensual as the complainant /informant has never made any complaint to any authority and after more than five years of the alleged rape, she has filed the present complaint / FIR in which she has made general allegations against the petitioner without disclosing the details as and when she was raped by the petitioner."

The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately concealed / suppressed about the order dated September 22, 2023 passed by the Supreme Court in Sanjeev Has Vs. State of Bihar, S.L.P. (Cr.) No.012280 of 2023 preferred by him, whereby the order dated December 12, 2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 was stayed by the Supreme Court's bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh. In its order, the Court has condoned the delay and issued notice to the respondents. The order reads: "In the meanwhile, there shall be interim stay of the further proceedings." The respondent's counsel submitted that the petitioner "is guilty of suppressing the material fact in judicial proceeding in order to obtained favourable order" from the High Court.

The August 6, 2024 order of the Patna High commits two proofing errors in paragraph 12. It refers to Diary Number 19079 of 2023 of the case as SLP (Cr.) No. 012280. It does not mention the name of the case, which is pending in the Supreme Court. It was filed on May 4, 2023. It was verified on September 18, 2023 and registered on September 23, 2023. It was last listed on September 22, 2023. The State of Bihar, Gayatri Kumari, SHO, Gulab Yadav and Lalit are respondents in the case. It refers to earlier case detail as order passed by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad of Patna High Court in CRWJC No. 1271 of 2022 on December 12, 2022. 

Justice Sandeep Kumar dealt with the aspect of concealment/ suppression of the Supreme Court's order by Sanjeev Hans. He observed: "33. After the hearing was concluded, the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 (informant) has filed an application under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. on 17.05.2024 and has submitted that the proceeding against the petitioner be initiated for suppression of material facts. The main contention of the respondent no.5 (informant) is that against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022, the petitioner had moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing an S.L.P. and the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 has stayed the order of this Court passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022, but this fact has not been brought to the notice of this Court in this petition." He recorded that the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had moved before the Supreme Court against the order dated 12.12.2022 passed in Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022 on various grounds. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the F.I.R. and for quashing the order dated of the learned Magistrate by which the Magistrate has directed for registration of the F.I.R. and therefore, the petitioner has different cause of action and there is no requirement for mentioning the same in this proceeding. He concluded: "35. In my opinion, no case for initiation of proceeding under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is made out and therefore, Interlocutory Application no. 02 of 2024 is dismissed." Justice Kumar's order dated June 20, 2024 had recorded that after "the hearing is concluded and today the matter has come for dictating the judgment." The counsel of Gayatri Kumari informed that he "has filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C."

It was submitted by the counsel of the Gayatri Kumari that the Magistrate vide order dated January 6, 2023 allowed the prayer of the petitioner to send the complaint petition under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Police for registration of the F.I.R and accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been lodged. The Investigating Officer of the case has filed an application in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-1, Danapur for deputing a Magistrate so that blood sample of Gulab Yadav, the son of the Gayatri Kumari and the petitioner be collected for DNA test but the learned Magistrate vide order dated March 6, 2023 has rejected the prayer of the Investigating Officer by holding that he has no jurisdiction to pass an order for DNA test. Her counsel submitted that Gulab Yadav and Sanjeev Hans, the petitioner used to commit rape with her. Since Gulab Yadav has undergone vasectomy, the presumption goes to establish that the petitioner is the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5. Thus, the DNA test of the petitioner and the son of the respondent no.5 is required in order to determine the biological father of the son of Gayatri Kumari, the respondent no.5.

The Court's order recorded the submission of the petitioner. It was submitted that the complaint petition has been filed without compliance of statutory provision of 154 (1) of the Cr.P.C. and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. The trial court below mechanically sent the aforesaid complaint petition for lodging the FIR under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. without taking note of the fact that complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions as laid down by the apex court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. vs. Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2015 6 SCC 287. It is evident from the complaint filed by the complainant. The order reads: "during the pendency of the case, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in the aforesaid case in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 18/2023 dated 09.01.2023 registered under sections 321, 341, 37, 376D, 420, 313, 120B, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC, 1860 and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000." The petitioner prayed for quashing the order dated January 6, 2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Danapur in Complaint Case No.1122 (c) of 2021, whereby the Magistrate passed the order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the F.I.R.

Gayatri Kumari, the complainant is a practicing advocate in Allahabad High Court. She was practicing in Patna High Court from 2009 to 2015. In the month of February, 2016 while the complainant was staying at the residence of Senior Advocate Gajendra Prasad Yadav situated at Golden Plaza Apartment, Chitkohra for getting her case mentioned, a junior advocate namely, Shiv Nandan Bharti introduced her to Gulab Yadav, who was an M.L.A. It has also been alleged that said Gulab Yadav lured her by saying that he will get make her member of Women Commission and asked her to come to meet him along with her bio-data at his residence situated at Flat No.401, Bindeshwari Apartment. It is alleged that when the Complainant reached the house of said Gulab Yadav, he raped her at gun point and when the complainant was going to register F.I.R. then Gulab Yadav asked his servant Lalit to bring vermilion and put the same on the forehead of the complainant and said that they were married and they will get their marriage registered and asked for some time to get divorce from his first wife.

It has been alleged that Gulab Yadav called the complainant to Pune to show the papers of the Court, by which divorce has been granted. On 08.07.2017 when the complainant reached Hotel Bestil then Gulab Yadav introduced her to Sanjeev Hans (petitioner) and both raped her after mixing some intoxicating substance in her food. When the complainant regained her consciousness, Gulab Yadav showed her the video of her rape and sent the same on her mobile and threatened her to make the video viral. The complainant got scared and started to live in Allahabad and when she missed her periods, she informed Gulab Yadav about the same but Gulab Yadav asked her to take medicine for abortion which she consumed, however, she had to get admitted in hospital due to medical condition. Thereafter, Gulab Yadav got the complainant admitted in Rahul Judicial Classes, Delhi and arranged for her stay in a hostel in Mukhergi Nagar, Delhi.

It has also been alleged that Gulab Yadav used to call the complainant at different hotels and raped her where Sanjeev Hans (petitioner) also used to accompany Gulab Yadav. It has also been alleged that on 13.02.2018 at Ashoka hotel, on 14.02.2018 at Park Avenue hotel and on 27.03.2018 at Le’ Meriden hotel, she was gang raped and resultantly she conceived and when she informed the accused about this, the accused persons threatened her. Out of fear, the complainant vacated her hostel and started living in Shalimar Bagh, Delhi where she gave birth to a male child on October 25, 2018 and when she informed this fact to Gulab Yadav, he told that it can not be his child as he has undergone vasectomy and said that the child is of Sanjeev Hans. When the complainant tried to contact Sanjeev Hans, he did not speak with her and since then the complainant is hiding from the accused persons as they are quite influential. It has further been alleged that the complainant went to Rupaspur Police Station for registering the F.I.R., but the
Police did not register the F.I.R. by saying that the accused persons are quite influential and then the complainant sent the complaint to Superintendent of Police, Patna on October 28, 2021, however no action was taken in this regard. The complaint case No.1122 (C) of 2021 was filed by the complainant before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Danapur, Patna for lodging the F.I.R. The Magistrate vide order dated September 20, 2022 dismissed the complaint case under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. 

The complainant approached the High Court by way of filing Cr.W.J.C. No.1271 of 2022. The Court vide order dated December 12, 2022 disposed of the said petition with certain directions. The High Court set aside the part of the order dated May 12, 2022 by which the application of the petitioner was taken as a private complaint on the records of the ACJM and then the High Court further set aside the order dated September 20, 2022 by which the same was dismissed in purported exercise of power under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the Magistrate vide order dated January 6, 2023 directed for registration of the F.I.R. under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons.

Sanjeev Hans had filed the criminal writ in the High Court for the quashing of the FIR on February 3, 2023 through his Advocate Rana Vikram Singh. It was registered on February 16, 2023. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had passed  the first order in the case on February 25, 2023. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the complainant is a practicing lawyer since 2009 but she filed the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the first time after 5 years of the alleged incident. It is hard to believe that a criminal lawyer whose standing is of more than 14 years in the Bar had chosen to file a complaint after 5 years of the alleged incident without annexing any proof and without any satisfactory explanation for the said delay. He submitted that the High Court in catena of judgments has held that if delay in lodging FIR is not satisfactorily explained then that delay often results in embellishment, which is a creature of afterthought and such FIR should be quashed. He relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported as AIR 2015 SC 1758; Babu Venkatesh and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. reported as (2022) 5 SCC 639; Ramesh Kumar Bung & Ors. vs. State of Telangana & Anr. SLP (Criminal) No.13762 of 2023; Mahmood Ali vs. State of U.P. reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950; Prashant Bharti vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2013) 9 SCC 293; Rajiv Thapar and Ors. vs. Madan Lal Kappor reported as (2013) 3 SCC 330; State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported as AIR 1992 SC 604. The Supreme Court has held in State of Haryana case that where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, the F.I.R. should be quashed.

Supreme Court upholds the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh, Patna High Court

Upon hearing the criminal appeal of five petitioners, namely, Srikant padhayay, Shashikant Upadhayay, Srina Upadhayay, Ashutosh Kumar and Asim Priyanshu, Supreme Court's bench of  Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar concluded that "there is no ground for interfering with the order of the High Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail rather not considering application on merits. Since their action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this appeal must fail. Consequently, it is dismissed." The case arose out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2020 Thana- Govindganj, East Champaran.

The 33 page long judgement authored by Justice Ravikumar was delivered on March 14 , 2024. The Court relied on Court's decisions in Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) and Lavesh v. NCT of Delhi (2012).

It all began with a pre-arrest bail application which was moved in connection with FIR No.79 of 2020, registered against him and co-accused at Govidganj, Police Station, District East Champaran, Bihar, under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The Court refused to interfere with the order of Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court. In this case, FIR was registered pursuant to the directions of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari on complaint No.395 of 2020 filed by Ashutosh Kumar, Respondent No.4 under Section 156 (3), Cr. PC. 

The allegations in the complaint is as follows: On February 22, 2020, at about 8.00 am, when Jagmati Kunwar, the grandmother of respondent No.4 reached in front of the house of appellant No.2, Shashikant Upadhyay, he said that she is the witch who made his child sick and shall not be spared. Then, the appellants and eight other family members gathered around her and the 4th appellant caught hold of her hair and asked the others to bring dung. Thereupon, accused Paritosh Kumar brought dung and accused Rishu put dung into the mouth of Jagmati Kunwar. Consequently, she vomited and fell down. When respondent No.2/complainant and other witnesses went for her help, the second appellant Shashikant Upadhayay assaulted and abused respondent No.2. Co-accused Paritosh Kumar and Jishu Kumar tore the blouse of Kiran Devi and she was disrobed. Another co-accused Soni Devi snatched a gold chain from the complainant. The co-accused Ravikant and appellant No.5 tore the clothes of Jagmati Kunwar and made her half-naked.

In this backdrop, the five petitioners who apprehend arrest in registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379/354B and other sections of the IPC had filed a petition for pre-arrest bail in Patna High Court on November 22, 2022. It was registered on  December 1, 2022. 

Section 379 deals with "Punishment for theft". It reads: "Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 354B deals with "Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe". It reads: "Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of the High Court heard the matter and dismissed petition for pre-arrest bail of these five petitioners and dismissed it as not maintainable. 

The 2-page long High Court's order dated April 4, 2023 reads: "It is submitted on behalf of the State and the informant that petitioners have been declared absconder and processes of sections 82 and 83 have been initiated against them to ensure their appearance in the Court. Considering the aforesaid development, petition for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is dismissed as not maintainable."

Patna High Court and its subordinate courts have over 37 lakh pending civil and criminal cases

The Patna High Court has 203291 pending cases. Bihar's  district and subordinate courts have 3508123 pending cases. As on July 15,2023, there are 4.41 crores cases pending in district and subordinate courts across the country. This was revealed by Arjun Ram Meghwal, the Union Minister of Law and Justice. He was responding to question about whether the pendency of cases in courts has increased due to vacancy of judges in different courts and tribunals. 

The minister replied, "The vacancy of judges is not the sole reason for the increased pendency of cases in
courts. The pendency of cases in courts can be contributed to several factors which, inter-alia, include availability of physical infrastructure and supporting court staff, complexity of facts involved, nature of evidence, co-operation of stake holders viz. bar, investigation agencies, witnesses and litigants and proper application of rules and procedures. Other factors that lead to delay in disposal of cases include lack of prescribed time frame by respective courts for disposal of various kinds of cases, frequent adjournments and lack of adequate arrangement to monitor, track and bunch cases for hearing. The information regarding pendency of cases in the Tribunals is not maintained by the Department." 

Replying to the query regarding the steps taken to fill up the vacant posts within a fixed time limit in all these courts, he said, "(c): Filling up of vacancies in the High Courts is a continuous, integrated and
collaborative process between the Executive and the Judiciary. It requires consultation and approval from various constitutional authorities both at state and central level. Hence, the time for filling up of vacancies of the Judges in the higher Judiciary cannot be indicated. While every effort is made to fill up the existing vacancies expeditiously, vacancies of Judges in High Courts do keep on arising on account of retirement, resignation or elevation of Judges and also due to increase in the strength of Judges. In case of the District/Subordinate judiciary, The Central Government has no role under the Constitution in the selection, recruitment and appointment of judicial officers at the District/Subordinate judiciary level. As per the Constitutional framework, in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 read with Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, the respective State Government in consultation with the High Court frames the rules and regulations regarding the issues of appointment and recruitment of Judicial Officers in the respective State Judicial Service. Thus, the selection and appointment of judicial officers in the Subordinate/District Courts is the responsibility of the High Courts and State Governments concerned. In some States, the respective High Courts undertake the recruitment process, whereas in other States, the High Courts does it in consultation with the State Public Service Commissions."

Caste-based survey raises question of the right to privacy and legislative competence: Patna High Court

Responding to the unanimous resolution to carry out the caste-based survey by both the Houses of the Legislature of Bihar and its approval by the State Cabinet, a PIL was filed on April 5, 2023. It got registered on April 15, 2023. This PIL filed by Youth For Equality was converged with other PILs filed by Akhilesh Kumar, Ek Soch Ek Prayas, Reshma Prasad and Muskan Kumari. These cases were filed the backdrop of the decision of the State Government having decided to conduct a caste-based survey through the General Administration Department, expenditure of which was intended to be taken from the Bihar Contingency Fund, with a target to complete the exercise by February 2023 and a communication issued by the Principal Secretary to the District Officers, also indicates the subject to be of ‘Bihar Caste-based enumeration for determination of caste list for 2022.’ The proforma in which the survey is to be conducted enumerates seventeen heads or details to be collected; one of which is ‘caste’.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran,and Justice Madhuresh Prasad passed an interim order on May 4, 2023 saying, "we direct the State Government to immediately stop the caste-based survey and ensure that the data already collected are secured and not shared with anybody till final orders are passed in the writ petition." In the penultimate paragraph of the order, it says, "We also see from the notification issued that the Government intends to share data with the leaders of different parties of the State Assembly, the ruling party and opposition party which is also a matter of great concern. There definitely arises the larger question of right to privacy, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held to be a facet of right to life."

The order states that "Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the State has no power to carry out a caste-based survey, in the manner in which it is fashioned now, which would amount to a census, thus impinging upon the legislative power of the Union Parliament."

The order observes, "we find that the caste-based survey is a census in the garb of a survey; the power to carry out which is exclusively on the Union Parliament which has also enacted a Census Act, 1948. True, there is a compulsion by way of an obligation on the citizen under the Census Act and un-hindered entry conferred on the authorized officers; but also a protection from the records of census not being open to inspection nor admissible in evidence; under Section 15. Though it has been vehemently urged that both Houses of the State Legislature has sanctioned the survey, there is nothing placed on record regarding the deliberations made or the objects sought to be achieved by embarking upon such a massive exercise, that too for the collection of details which include the sensitive issue of caste. There are broad reasons stated in the counter affidavit, but nothing comes out from the notification, nor is any specific reasoning or object stated to have motivated the initiation of the exercise of a caste-based survey, which reasoning or motivation should also be relatable to a time, contemporaneous with the time of bringing out the notification. It is also submitted before us that 80% of the work is over and what remains is mere collation of the details collected and the further action based on such data collected and made available to the State."

In its May 4, 2023 order, the Court had posted the the writ petitions for hearing on July 3, 2023. On May 5, the Advocate General mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice and sought an early hearing. The current listing position shows that it is listed for orders before the Chief Justice on May 9, 2023.

Supreme Court asks Bihar DGP, High Court Registrar General reasons behind 21 year delay

Supreme Court's Bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose heard an appeal on October 15, 2020 filed by the accused husband in a dowry death case in Bachcha Pandey v State of Bihar [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4769/2020].The appeal arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated July 6, ­2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.21680/2020 passed by Justice Madhuresh Prasad of the Patna High Court. It upheld High Court's order. 

In its order, the Supreme Court observed: "The materials placed on record indicate a shocking state of affairs." The order records the sequence of events. In this case a First Information Report was registered as far back as on February 2, 1999 against Bachcha Pandey, the petitioner and some of his relatives under Sections 304B, 201 and 34, IPC based on a complaint made  by the brother of  the  deceased (wife  of  the  Petitioner). A perusal of the records suggest that the petitioner got married to the   deceased in 1993. The deceased was allegedly  harassed continuously by the petitioner and his family for dowry, and was even thrown out by the petitioner and his family, after they took her jewellery. The deceased apparently started living with the petitioner and his family again, consequent to an agreement prepared  by the petitioner in court. It was alleged by the complainant that he was informed by unknown persons about the death of his sister, whose funeral ceremonies were being completed by the petitioner and his family without informing the deceased’s side of the family.   

The court's order records that after nearly 10 years, a final report/charge­sheet was filed in the case against all the accused named in the FIR, including the petitioner, on September 30, 2009. The final report notes that “sufficient evidence has been made available for charge­sheet against all the accused  named in the FIR”.   

Besides this, the order dated February 14, 2020, passed by the Patna High Court while dismissing the petitioner’s anticipatory bail application, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64116 of 2019, noted that as per the case diary a “very highly poisonous substance was detected in the viscera examination of the deceased”. 

The court observed that despite the seriousness of the allegations, it is quite alarming that no actions  were taken by the police against the petitioner. After the elapse of more than 20 years since the incident  and the registration of the FIR, the petitioner was arrested in relation to the case only on June 7, 2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a bail application before the Additional District and Sessions Judge  which was rejected on June 12, 06.2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a bail application before the High Court, being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 21680 of 2020, which was dismissed vide  impugned order dated July 6, 2020. 

The court's order reads: "The flagrant delay in conducting the investigation and prosecution of the accused  in connection with the serious crime involving the death of a young married woman is extremely troubling, and the reasons for the same are unclear. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court, or to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. His plea is therefore dismissed at this stage." The petitioner from Vaishali had challenged the aforementioned order before the Supreme Court  by way of the present Special Leave Petition.  

The court issued notice to the Director General of Police, Bihar as well as the Registrar General of the Patna High Court with a direction to them to place before us a report about the particulars of the present case, particularly with respect to the reasons behind such inordinate delay. The matter is likely to be listed before the court on November 11-12 after four weeks.