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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo led bench diposes infructuous writ petitions of nurses

In Rinkoo Kumari & Ors vs. The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar & Ors (2026), High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar delivered 20-page long judgement dated February 26, 2026, Over 240 candidates had approached the High Court through separate petitions which were heard together. This writ petition has been filed by Rinkoo Kumari and others had prayed for (i) Declaring Rule 2(viii) and Rule 6 of the Bihar Nursing Cadre Rules, 2024, being ultra vires Article 14. 16 and 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India as also the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, by which, without there being any such requirement for candidates passing the General Nursing and Midwifery Course(GNM) Course from institutes in the State of Bihar, it has, inter alia, been prescribed that for appointment on the post of Nurse, in case the Institute of Nursing is located outside the State of Bihar, from where the General Nursing and Midwifery Course(GNM) is undertaken by the candidates, a certificate of suitability/recognition from Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi will be mandatory and it has further been provided that it shall also be mandatory for the candidates to be registered with the Bihar Nursing Registration Council. 

The petitioners had prayed to hold and declare that the impugned rules are discriminatory as it discriminated with candidates who had passed the GNM course from a registered institutes outside the State of Bihar and those who had passed the course from institutes located within the State of Bihar. They had prayed for quashing the impugned Press Release dated April 17, 2025 issued by the Bihar Nursing Registration Council, by which it was directed that the registration of all such candidates, who have undertaken GNM Course from institutes which does not possess the Suitability Certificate issued by the Indian Nursing Council was cancelled and they were advised to get registration from the respective States Council. The petitioners prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondent Bihar Nursing Registration Council to register the petitioners who had undertaken the GNM Course from institutes falling within their respective State Council and to quash the impugned advertisement advertisement no. 23/2025, by which online applications were invited for appointment on 11389 posts of GNM and a qualification as prescribed by the impugned Bihar Nursing Cadre Rules, 2024 was required to be fulfilled for applying on the post of Nurse.  

The other four respondents were: Bihar Nurses Registration Counsel, through its Registrar, Director General (Nursing) cum Chairman, Bihar Nurses Registration Counsel, Bihar Technical Service Commission, through its Secretary, and Indian Nursing Council represented by its Secretary.

The judgement referred to Advocate General's submission wherein he had produced a notification issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar dated February 25, 2026. The notification indicated that, in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Bihar has made certain amendments to the Bihar Nursing Cadre Rules, 2024. The amended rules are the “Bihar Nursing Cadre (Amendment) Rules, 2026”.  By virtue of the amendment, Rule 2(viii) of the Bihar Nursing Cadre Rules, 2024 was substituted, and a revised definition of “recognized institution” was provided. Similarly, Rule 6 of the Bihar Nursing Cadre Rules, 2024 was also substituted. The notification was taken on record. 

Chief Justice Sahoo who authored the judgement concluded: "5. In view of the aforesaid notification and the amendments brought into force, the issues raised in the present writ petition no longer survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition has become infructuous and is disposed of. 6. Since similar prayers have been made in the connected writ petitions, namely C.W.J.C. No. 10101 of 2025, C.W.J.C. No. 4241 of 2025, C.W.J.C. No. 8190 of 2025, C.W.J.C. No. 8299 of 2025, C.W.J.C. No. 8505 of 2025, and C.W.J.C. No. 632 of 2026, the said writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the present order."

 

Patna High Court upheld the order of Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council disqualifying Ram Bali Singh as MLC

Dr. Ram Bali Singh Chandravanshi was disqualified from Bihar Legislative Council (BLC). The disqualification became effective from February 6, 2024. He filed a writ petition against the disqualification in the Patna High Court on February 16, 2024. It was registered on February 22, 2024. The case was filed against the BLC when Devesh Chandra Thakur was the Chairman, BLC. In his order dated February 28, 2024, Justice Sandeep Kumar recorded: "It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was heard on preliminary objection but the impugned order was passed considering the merits of the case and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner." On May 6, 2024, the case came for hearing before Justice Mohit Kumar Shah. He directed that notice be issued to Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the Respondent No.3 who was the Chief Whip (Ruling Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal), "both by ordinary process as well as by speed post for which requisites, etc. must be filed within two weeks from today, failing which the present petition shall stand rejected as against the Respondent No.3 without further reference to the Bench." 

Notably, on July 1, 2024, the constitution of Benches in accordance with Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Chapter II of the Rules of High Court at Patna Election was announced. It states "Petitions under the Representation of People Act would be tried, heard and decided by the Hon’ble Judges, who has been entrusted with such petitions." Justice Nani Tagia has been allotted election matters. Prior to him Justice Harish Kumar dealt with these matters since November 22, 2023.

Later, Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, was named as the new Opposition Party Chief Whip in the Bihar Legislative Council through a notification issued by Akhilesh Kumar Jha, Secretary of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, dated February 15, 2024. This development happened after Janata Dal (United) severed ties with Rashtriya Janta Dal (RJD) on January 28, 2024. JDU had formed the government in Bihar in alliance with the RJD, Congress and other Left parties in 2022 and was part of the Opposition's INDIA bloc.

Subsequently, the case of Dr. Ram Bali Singh Chandravanshi was listed for hearing on June 27, 2024. The order recorded that the counsel for the petitioner sought a day’s time for filing an interlocutory application, challenging the notification dated June 25, 2024 issued by the Election Commission of India. The order of Justice Shah reads: "In case the said interlocutory application is filed by tomorrow, the registry is directed to number the same and place it on record of the case tomorrow itself." The petitioner filed I.A. No. 2 of 2024 with specific reference to the notification issued by the Election Commission. 

When the matter came up for hearing on July 1, 2024 before Justice Mohit Kumar Shah bench, the counsel for the petitioner sought pressed I.A. No. 2 of 2024, whereby and whereunder a prayer has been made to stay the Notification dated 25.06.2024, issued by the Election Commission of India, notifying the bye-election to be held for the purposes of filling the vacancy, which has arisen in the Legislative Council of the State of Bihar on account of disqualification of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondents pointed out that the present writ petition is required to be heard by the Division Bench of this Court, in light of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in a judgment rendered in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh & Ors., reported in (2015) 12 SCC 570, paragraph no. 67. The order of Justice Shah reproduced the relevant text as under:-“67. Such proceedings must be heard by a Bench of at least two Judges and be disposed of within a period of eight weeks from the date of initiation without fail. The Chief Justice of the High Court concerned will make an appropriate arrangement in this regard. If the above mentioned time-frame is strictly followed, the Commission would still be left with another eight weeks of time to comply with the obligations emanating from Section 151-A of the RP Act.”

The High Court's order concluded: "In view of the aforesaid, let the matter be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for issuance of appropriate directions." The division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy heard counsel for the parties on July 3, 2024. 

The division bench delivered the judgement on July 4, 2024. The writ petition had challenged the disqualification of Dr. Ram Bali Singh, a Member of the Bihar Legislative Council. It came up before the Division Bench based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India vs. Bajrang Bahadur Singh; (2015) 12 SCC 570. Noticing that there is no limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition against disqualification, the Supreme Court had prescribed eight weeks as the limitation period, till a period is prescribed by the Legislature, for the purpose of filing a writ petition and a further eight weeks within which the High Court was also obliged to consider and dispose of the writ petition. The said period was prescribed since, after the disqualification order has been passed, the Election Commission was obliged to carry out a fresh election within a period of six months.

The judgment noted that the disqualification was on February 6, 2024 and the writ petition was filed on February 22.02.2024. The eight weeks time had expired on April 22, 2024. The writ petition ought to have been placed before a Division Bench which the Registry failed to do. It also recorded that the Counsel for the petitioner did not apprise the Single Judge about the requirement as stipulated in the cited decision. In fact, the same was brought to the notice of the Single Judge only on July 1, 2024, when the Single Judge directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice. A motion was made before the division bench of the High Court on July 2, 2024 and the matter was posted on July 3, 2024 for hearing.

The disqualification by BLC was made on the complaint made by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh, the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent was served with notice, but no one appeared during the hearing. The The bench was apprised of the fact that as of there was an election scheduled and there was only one nomination filed. The election was scheduled on July 12, 2024 and the last date of withdrawal of nomination was on July 5, 2024. The bench noted that if the solitary nomination was not withdrawn, the result would have to be declared; when the time for withdrawing of nomination expires. It heard the matter in such circumstances.

The petitioner had challenged the order passed by Devesh Chandra Thakur, the Chairman, BLC. Meanwhile, Thakur has resigned after his election as MP.

S.B.K Mangalam, counsel appearing for the petitioner alleged that the Chairman, BLC violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued with a notice and the petitioner had approached this Court alleging that the complaint did not satisfy the requirements under Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since no affidavit accompanied the complaint filed by Dr Sunil Kumar Singh. The High Court had directed that the objection be raised before the Chairman and the Counsel for the Legislative Council had also assured that it would be considered. It was on the specific undertaking of the Counsel appearing for the Chairman that it would be considered, the petitioner was relegated to the Chairman. A preliminary objection was filed pointing out the procedural irregularity, which according to the Counsel required the Chairman to dismiss the complaint. However, no order was  issued on the preliminary objection and final orders were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, to refute the allegations raised. The order of disqualification recorded the arguments and without finding any of the ingredients for disqualification and without dealing with the allegations, it ordered disqualification. It is evident from the order that there was complete absence of application of mind. 

The counsel for the petition relied on Shri Baru Ram v. Smt. Prasanni and Other; AIR 1959 SC 93 to contend that when a procedure has been prescribed by statute, it should be done in that manner and not otherwise. He also relied on Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State Electricity Board and Others; (2010) 13 SCC 216 to contend that if there is complete non-application of mind definitely there could be interference of orders passed by Statutory Authorities/Courts/Tribunals. The counsel also pointed out that the show-cause notice was issued by RJD, the political party to the petitioner for making some remarks against the leader of the party. But no further proceedings were taken to oust him from the party. In such circumstances, the Chairman, BLC ought to have factored in the restraint exercised by RJD, the political party which did not take any action against the petitioner for the remarks made; which is also the subject matter of the complaint made.

Ashhar Mustafa, counsel appearing for the BLC submitted that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to put forth his contentions on merits with respect to the specific allegations; which he failed to do. The petitioner had been resorting to delaying tactics so as to continue to be a MLC. The complaint by RJD was filed on November 2, 2023 and notice was served on November 21, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the petitioner had sought additional time of 15 days, which was granted. On December 12, 2023, the petitioner approached the High Court with a writ petition pointing out a procedural irregularity. The writ petition was disposed off granting liberty to raise all the grounds before the Chairman of the BLC including the procedural irregularity under Rule 6. Chairman could not have first ruled on the preliminary objection and then given a further opportunity for refuting the factual allegations. 

The counsel for the BLC, the respondent relied on Mahachandra Prasad Singh (Dr.) v. Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council and Others; (2004) 8 SCC 747 and Ravi S. Naik v. Union of India; 1994 Supp (2) SCC 641 to contend that Rules 6 and 7 are only directory in nature and not mandatory, especially since, as held by the Supreme Court it cannot lead to curtailing the content and scope of substantive provisions, in the Xth Schedule of the Constitution of India. The Xth Schedule does not provide for a verification in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and merely because of such an irregularity, the jurisdiction of the Chairman or the Speaker of the House cannot be curtailed.

The division bench also heard Siddhartha Prasad, counsel appearing for the Election Commission, who pointed out that the Election Commission, in accordance with its obligations has ensured that an election is conducted within 6 months.

The bench noted that Bihar Legislative Council (Disqualification on the Ground of Defection) Rules, 1994 by sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 provides for verification, as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which does not require an affidavit. The counsel for the petitioner had urged that there was no affidavit accompanying the complaint, as is required under Order VI Rule 15 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973.

The bench cited the relevant portion of the Supreme Court's decision in Mahachandra Prasad Singh case which has stated so in paragraph 16. It reads: Sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 says that no reference of any question as to whether a member has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule shall be made except by a petition in relation to such member made in accordance with the provisions of the said rule and sub-rule (6) of the same rule provides that every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings. The heading of Rule 7 is “Procedure”. Sub-rule (1) of this rule says that on receipt of petition under Rule 6, the Chairman shall consider whether the petition complies with the requirement of the said rule and sub-rule (2) says that if the petition does not comply with the requirement of Rule 6, the Chairman shall dismiss the petition. These Rules have been framed by the Chairman in exercise of power conferred by Paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule. The purpose and object of the Rules is to facilitate the job of the Chairman in discharging his duties and responsibilities conferred upon him by Paragraph 6, namely, for resolving any dispute as to whether a member of the House has become subject to disqualification under the Tenth Schedule. The Rules being in the domain of procedure, are intended to facilitate the holding of inquiry and not to frustrate or obstruct the same by introduction of innumerable technicalities. Being subordinate legislation, the Rules cannot make any provision which may have the effect of curtailing the content and scope of the substantive provision, namely, the Tenth Schedule. There is no provision in the Tenth Schedule to the effect that until a petition which is signed and verified in the manner laid down in CPC for verification of pleadings is made to the Chairman or the Speaker of the House, he will not get the jurisdiction to give a decision as to whether a member of the House has become subject to disqualification under the Schedule. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule does not contemplate moving of a formal petition by any person for assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman or the Speaker of the House. The purpose of Rules 6 and 7 is only this much that the necessary facts on account of which a member of the House becomes disqualified for being a member of the House under Paragraph 2, may be brought to the notice of the Chairman. There is no lis between the person moving the petition and the member of the House who is alleged to have incurred a disqualification. It is not an adversarial kind of litigation where he may be required to lead evidence. Even if he withdraws the petition it will make no difference as a duty is cast upon the Chairman or the Speaker to carry out the mandate of the constitutional provision viz. the TenthSchedule. The object of Rule 6 which requires that every petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in CPC for the verification of pleadings, is that frivolous petitions making false allegations may not be filed in order to cause harassment. It is not possible to give strict interpretation to Rules 6 and 7 otherwise the very object of the Constitution (Fifty-second Amendment) Act by which the Tenth Schedule was added would be defeated. A defaulting legislator, who has otherwise incurred the disqualification under Paragraph 2, would be able to get away by taking the advantage of even a slight or insignificant error in the petition and thereby asking the Chairman to dismiss the petition under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7. The validity of the Rules can be sustained only if they are held to be directory in nature as otherwise, on strict interpretation, they would be rendered ultra vires.

The bench also cited the decision in Ravi S. Naik from paragraph 18. It reads:- It was also submitted that the petitions were also not verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for the verification of pleadings and thus there was non-compliance of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6 also and that in view of the said infirmities the petitions were liable to be dismissed in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7. We are unable to accept the said contention of Shri Sen. The Disqualification Rules have been framed to regulate the procedure that is to be followed by the Speaker for exercising the power conferred on him under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. The Disqualification Rules are, therefore, procedural in nature and any violation of the same would amount to an irregularity in procedure which is immune from judicial scrutiny in view of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 6 as construed by this Court in Kihoto Hollohan case [1992 Supp (2) SCC 651]. Moreover, the field of judicial review in respect of the orders passed by the Speaker under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 as construed by this Court in Kihoto Hollohan case [1992 Supp (2) SCC 651] is confined to breaches of the constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity. We are unable to uphold the contention of Shri Sen that the violation of the Disqualification Rules amounts to violation of constitutional mandates. By doing so we would be elevating the rules to the status of the provisions of the Constitution which is impermissible. Since the Disqualification Rules have been framed by the Speaker in exercise of the power conferred under paragraph 8 of the Tenth Schedule they have a status subordinate to the Constitution and cannot be equated with the provisions of the Constitution. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as constitutional mandates and any violation of the Disqualification Rules does not afford a ground for judicial review of the order of the Speaker in view of the finality clause contained in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 of the Tenth Schedule as construed by this Court in Kihoto Hollohan case.

The bench observed that the requirement in Rule 6 is merely procedural. "We have to find that the procedural irregularity raised as a preliminary objection before the Chairman of the Legislative Council is not sustainable."

It also observed that the Chairman specifically observed in the order that the factual statements made in the complaint were not refuted by the petitioner and the contention raised was only regarding the maintainability of the petition on the allegation of procedural irregularity. Both sides were heard by the Chairman, BLC on January 9, 2024, when the complainant was represented by an Advocate and the petitioner was present in person. The Advocate appearing for the complainant specifically stated that the hearing should be done on the merits of the case. A request was given by the petitioner seeking time, so that an Advocate could appear for him, which was objected to by the complainant on the ground of unnecessary delay being occasioned. However, the Chairman granted the petitioner time for appearance through an Advocate and the matter was posted on January 16, 2024. The order specifically records that the petitioner was informed that this would be the final opportunity for him to put forth his arguments and submit whatever documents or the evidence he had to give. Hence, there was a clear understanding, as is evident from the order, that the matter would be heard on merits and the question of procedural irregularity would also be considered, which was also directed by a Single Judge of this Court. The Chairman, in his order, specifically referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in Ravi S. Naik and Mahachandra Prasad Singh to hold that the procedural irregularity does not vitiate the complaint. Following the dictum that the procedure prescribed under Rules 6(6) and 7 to be directory and not mandatory, we fully agree with the said finding and further observe that the requirement of an affidavit was absent in Order VI Rule 15 as available in the C.P.C of 1908 which is specifically referred to and incorporated in the Rules of 1994.

The High Court's judgement observed: "We cannot, but notice that there is absolutely no contention raised against the allegations before the Chairman nor any ground raised against the decision of disqualification." It reiterated the finding in Ravi S. Naik stating ‘Moreover, the field of judicial review in respect of the orders passed by the Speaker under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 as construed by the Court in Kihoto Hollohan case [1992 Supp (2) SCC 651] is confined to breaches of the constitutional mandates, mala fides, non-compliance with Rules of Natural Justice and perversity”. 

The High Court's judgement records that "The allegations were made against the Leader in the Legislative Assembly, of the political party, to which the petitioner also belonged. There were also allegations of the petitioner having made public statements against the declared policies of the State Government, passed by the Legislature; when the party on whose platform the petitioner had been elected, was a part of the Government. We would not refer to the allegations as such since there is no contention raised against those nor are they even denied. However, we find that the decision taken by the Chairman regarding the scurrilous remarks publicly made against the leader of the party in the Legislative Assembly and statements made, again publicly, against the declared policy of the Government in which the political party was associated were considered in the light of the decisions in Ravi S. Naik (supra) and Kihoto Hollohan vs. Zachillhu & Ors.; 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651. It was held that though every citizen has a fundamental right to free speech and expression; when he is a Member of the legislative body in the capacity of a Member of a political party, he should comply with the discipline, constitution and rules of the party. It was found that the petitioner by his conduct has voluntarily abandoned his political party and hence he is liable to disqualification based on the Rules of 1994.

It recalled that the oft-repeated dictum in Baru Ram that whenever the statute requires a particular act to be done in a particular manner and also lays down the consequence of failure to comply with the said requirement; it would always lead to that specific consequence, on failure to comply and not otherwise, is not applicable in view of the binding precedents that the stipulation in the Rules of 1994 is only directory and not mandatory. 

The judgement authored by the chief justice concluded: "We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We dismiss the writ petition leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs."

Notably, in view of the Supreme Court decision in M/s N. G. Projects Vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain Civil Appeal No. 1846/2022), the Trade & Commerce (Works Contract– Tender and Blacklisting) matters are also posted before a Bench of two judges.