Patna High Court delivered 12 judgments on Jan. 6

In Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Anr., Ashish Patel vs. The State of Bihar, Ankit kumar @ Ankit Kumar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar, Md. Anwar @ Anwar vs. The State of Bihar, Madhurendra Prasad vs. Chairman cum Managing Director, Bihar State Power (Holding) Co. Ltd.., Bipin Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Manoj Kumar vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., Raj Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, The Union of India vs. Prahlad Roy, Sumeshwar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar, Ramesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Union of India through Senior Divisional Engineer, vs. M/s Mahnar Infratech Pvt. Ltd, High Court delivered 12 judgments on January 6, 2026.

In Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Anr, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha delivered a judgement wherein, he concluded:"Upon going through the allegations made in the complaint petition, the order taking cognizance and the materials on record, in my opinion, at best, the allegations give rise to civil dispute but the same has been given the colour of criminal offence. As such, permitting the prosecution to continue against the petitioners shall amount to abuse of the process of criminal court. 24. In order to prevent the abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice, I deem it fit to quash the order taking cognizance against the petitioners, dated 31.08.2017. 25. Accordingly, the order, dated 31.08.2017, passed in Complaint Case No. 721(C) of 2017, by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XII, Patna, is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioners.b26. In the result, this application is allowed. 27. There shall be no order as to costs." 

The quashing application was filed for quashing the order, dated 31.08.2017, passed, in Complaint Case of 2017, by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XII, Patna, by which the District Court was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420/467/468/ 471/387/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and one Nikhil Priyadarshi. 

The prosecution case filed by the complainant Shoaib Hasan Chand, against accused persons, namely, Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha, Nikhil Priyadarshi, Manish Priyadarshi, relatives and family members of Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha, unknown anti-social friends of Nikhil and Manish Priyadarshi and Anjali Shrivastava, is that the complainant was the Managing Director of Aaha Planners and Developers Private Ltd. An unregistered development agreement was executed between the complainant and accused Nikhil Priyadarshi and Manish Priyadarshi, upon payment of Rs. one crore on October 13, 2016, regarding 40 Kathas of land of the accused persons, situated at Saguna More, Patna. Again, they demanded Rs. 30,00,000/- from the complainant- Opposite Party No. 2, which was paid to the accused persons through his cousin. Again after payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the first week of November, the accused Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha handed over the documents of the land, in question. It stated that the complainant spent Rs. 50,00,000/- lakhs for development work towards the cost of construction of boundary wall at the site.

Afterwards, upon verification, the complainant found the documents of land, in question, to be forged, fabricated and fake. It was stated that a total amount of Rs.2,30,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused persons. When the complainant demanded his money back, the friend of Nikhil Priyadarshi, namely, Gaurav, handed him a cheque of Rs. 450,000/- signed by one Prem Prakash, which was dishonored. Earlier also, a friend of Nikhil had given Rs.1,00,000/- and further assured the complainant that he would get back his money once Nikhil arrives.

The complainant also alleged that on March 13, 2017 friend of Nikhil, along with anti-social elements, took the complainant to Durga Mandir, where he was surrounded by armed persons and threatened to kill him and his family members if he deposed in the rape case or demanded his money back and also threatened to lodge a false rape case against him. When the complainant demanded his money again, the accused filed false case of demand of extortion against the complainant. 

The complainant, in his statement on solemn affirmation, stated that Nikhil demanded Rs, 50,00,000/- on January 25, 2017, then he states that the demand of Rs. 50,00,000/- was made on 16 December, to which the complainant paid the amount after 2-4 days. The complainant got to know about the involvement of Nikhil, Manish and Krishna Bihari in the rape case of a minor girl through newspaper, dated December 20, 2016. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order has been passed mechanically without proper appreciation of the facts and settled principles of law. The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would result in gross miscarriage of justice and abuse of the process of the Court as the dispute between the parties purely arose out of the development agreement, dated October  13, 2016. The consideration was clearly fixed as 50 percent of the total built-up area and the agreement neither contains any recital regarding payment of any cash amount nor there is any acknowledgment of the accused persons.

The complainant, acting with ulterior motive and due to extraneous considerations, has attempted to convert a purely civil dispute into a criminal case by making false, improbable and self-contradictory allegations of cash payments, including Rs.2,30,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/-, which were improbable and unbelievable. The complainant wad inconsistent stand by first alleging payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the first week of November 2017 and thereafter, during enquiry, alleged the said payment to be made on December 16, 2017. The complainant further alleged that such payment was made in old currency, which has ceased to be legal tender after November 8, 2017, thereby rendering the allegation illegal, improbable and absurd. 

In any case, the development agreement, dated 13.10.2016, does not mention payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- or any other amount in cash, completely falsifying the allegation made by the complainant in the complaint petition. Even if the entire complaint is taken at its face value, no ingredient of Sections 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted against the accused persons inasmuch as the accused persons admittedly have the right, title and interest over the land, in question and they were competent to enter into the agreement. Any failure to perform contractual obligations or nonregistration of the agreement at a later stage can at best give rise to a civil dispute and cannot constitute the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. 

High Court's Division Bench of Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Alok Kumar Pandey in Union of India vs. Prahlad Roy (2026) drew on Supreme Court's decision dated the settled principle of law by relying on a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in The Director (Administration and Human Resources) KPTCL & Ors. vs. C.P. Mundinamani & Ors, reported in (2023) 14 SCC 411, wherein it has been held that merely because the government servant retired on the very next day, the same cannot be a ground to deny him benefit of annual increment and in such cases, the government employee is entitled to grant of one annual increment which he had earned on the last day of his service for rendering his services preceding one year from the date of retirement with good behaviour and efficiency. It also referred to decision dated February 20, 2025 in Union of India & Anr. vs. M. Siddaraj, in Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 2400 of 2024 in Civil Appeal No. 3933 of 2023 other analogous cases to submit that the judgment dated April 11, 2023 had though been modified a bit, nonetheless the sole respondent would be entitled to one increment which shall be payable on and after May 1, 2023. 

The High Court had delivered only one judgement on January 5, 2026 in Krishna Bihari Prasad Sinha & Anr vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 

Patna High Court gets Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo as its 47th Chief Justice

Patna High Court which was without Chief Justice since October 22, 2025 after the retirement of Justice P.B.Bajanthri, the 46th Chief Justice now has a Chief Justice who took oath on January 7, 2026. Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo will retire on June 4, 2026.  

Notably, Justice Bajanthri's tenure of 32 days as Chief Justice was the third shortest in the history of the High Court only behind 1 day tenure of Justice Bhagwati Prasad Jha and 5 day tenure of Justice Sushil Kumar Jha. After retirement, Supreme Court designated Bajanthri as a Senior Advocate on December 11, 2025.

Rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun: Supreme Court

The principle of law that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun, has been upheld in the decisions of the Supreme Court in catena of cases. It has been reiterated again while setting aside the judgement of the Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Madhuresh  Prasad which ignored that "if benchmarks are to be laid down in different steps of the recruitment process, they cannot be laid down after the completion of that particular step, when the game has already been played." Strangely, not only benchmarks were being set after the game had been played, rather the State decided that a portion of the game itself, should not have been played at all. In the Abhay Kumar Patel case, the "game" had not only commenced but was at its fag end. 

In Abhay Kumar Patel & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J. K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar delivered a 32-page long judgement dated January 6, 2026 observed:"....the finding of the High Court that the amendment was merely a policy decision and could be applied retrospectively to the selection process in vogue is completely erroneous. Even assuming that the 2022 Amendment Rules are policy decisions of the State, they cannot be implemented in a manner that violates the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by changing the selection criteria after the selection process has already begun." It added:".... in our considered opinion, the retrospective application of Rule 8(5) of the 2019 Rules, as introduced by the 2022 Amendment Rules, cannot be sustained insofar as the recruitment process initiated vide the 2019 Advertisements following the 2019 Rules prevalent at the said point of time." The judgement was authored by Justice Maheshwari. There were 137 appellants and 66 respondents in the case. 

The 31-page long final judgment and order dated July 5, 2023 passed in CWJC No. 18302 of 2022 by the High Court which dismissed the writ petitions filed by the 192 appellants against 11 respondents was authored by Justice Prasad. It was assailed in the appeal in the Supreme Court. 

The dispute arose with respect to the retrospective application of an amendment to the Bihar Engineering Services Class – II Recruitment Rules, 2019, specifically the introduction of Rule 8(5), whereby weightage for prior contractual work experience was introduced after the selection process comprising the written examination had initiated and the provisional merit list had already been published.

The appellants challenged the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 vide Notification No. Sec.02/Estt.-Appointment-01-01/2019-5565(S) dated 09.11.2022, issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which amended the 2019 Rules with retrospective date i.e., 06.03.2019. The appellants  challenged the retrospective application of the Bihar Engineering Service Class-II Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2022 vide Notification No. Sec.02/Estt.-Appointment-01-01/2019-5565(S) dated 09.11.2022, issued by the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, which amended the 2019 Rules with retrospective date i.e., 06.03.2019.

The High Court, while dismissing the writ petition, had found that the decision to grant weightage and age relaxation to contractual employees was a decision taken in line with a pre-existing 2018 policy for grant of such benefits. It was held that the appellants had merely participated in recruitment process and no rights had accrued in their favour at that stage. The Court observed that the power to legislate under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India includes the power to legislate retrospectively. Since the minimum requisite qualification was changed and the appellants were not disqualified, no prejudice has been caused by retrospective application of Rule 8(5) inserted by the 2022 Amendment Rules.

The appellants' counsel submitted that the rules of the game cannot be changed once the game has begun. Reference was made to the decisions of this Court in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.2008) 3 SCC 512 and Tej Prakash & Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.2025) 2 SCC 1 arguing that the introduction of new eligibility criteria for selection once the process has started was impermissible.

The Supreme Court observed:".... the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in the facts of the present case is that the selection process pursuant the 2019 Advertisements must be finalized in accordance with the 2019 Rules as they existed on the date of the advertisements, i.e., without taking into account the 2022 Amendment Rules by which the weightage and age relaxation for contractual experience was introduced. As such, the final merit list shall be drawn and appointments shall be made, completing the process within 2 months’ from the date of this judgment.44. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 18302 of 2022 is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to finalize the appointments based on the merit lists published in June/July 2022, strictly following the unamended 2019 Rules. 45. It has been informed that the State has made appointments pursuant to the impugned judgment of the High Court which stands set-aside, however, their services may be dispensed with, in accordance with law. We also make it clear that the directions as issued shall not have any adverse impact if the State of Bihar wishes to continue the services of the persons appointed as above, if they are deemed fit, on the vacancies available, if any, or by creating supernumerary posts without affecting the merit list as indicated above."

Supreme Court drew on the decision in Partha Das vs. State of Tripura, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1844. wherein Justice Maheshwari, while dealing with a challenge which was brought by the candidates to the decision of the Tripura Government to cancel an ongoing recruitment process after publication of the provisional merit list pursuant to an executive instruction of the State to do away with interviews in recruitment process of Class-IV posts held as follows:

“47. The recruitment process under the two advertisements commenced on the date of their respective issuance. At the cost of repetition and as discussed above, much water had flown after such commencement. The State had taken active and tangible steps such as constituting the Recruitment Board, setting up different State teams for recruitment rallies which were conducted all across India, candidates were tested physically, in a written exam and orally through an interview. A provisional merit list was purportedly prepared in pursuance of the recruitment process. After all this, Cancellation Memorandum was issued on 20.08.2018 which was general in nature, effectively setting the clock back and putting the entire process at nought.

48. The reasoning behind the said cancellation, as suggested by the State of Tripura, is that it was decided by the Government that not only future recruitment, but also ongoing recruitment processes must invariably be governed by the NRP. In the context of the present case, the marked difference which would be brought about by the NRP is that interview cannot be conducted as a part of the procedure for recruitment given that the post of ‘Enrolled Follower’ is a Group-D post, even though the stage of taking interviews is already over in the present case.

The Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra) affirmed the decision in K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., and held that the recruitment authority can devise a procedure for selection only in absence of rules to the contrary, however, the same should be done prior to commencement of the recruitment process. It has been held that if benchmarks are to be laid down in different steps of the recruitment process, they cannot be laid down after the completion of that particular step, when the game has already been played. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below as thus:—

“52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/recruiting authority/competent authority, in absence of rules to the contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process including written examination and interview. However, if any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at different stages of the recruitment process, then such benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/examiner/interviewer is taken by surprise.

Notably, the decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] does not proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set after the stage is over, in other words after the game has already been played. This view is consistent with the rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the candidates as also the requirement of transparency in recruitment to public services and thereby obviates malpractices in preparation of select list.

In pursuance of Rule 24(e)of the TSR Rules, the DGP had approved interview as one of the tests required to be passed. Thereafter, candidates participated in interviews and were ranked accordingly. It can be said that the stage of interview was over much prior to the issuance of the Cancellation Memorandum.

The written examinations were held in March2022. The results were declared in June/July 2022. The candidates were called for document verification. At this stage, the selection process had proceeded significantly, and would have concluded with the filling up of vacancies.

The issuance of the 2022 Amendment Rules, introducing Rule 8(5) with retrospective effect from 06.03.2019, attempts to rewrite the rules of the game which has already begun. By reducing the weightage of the written examination to 75 marks and introducing 25 marks for contractual experience, the State has fundamentally altered the basis of selection and changed the ‘eligibility criteria for being placed in the merit list’ which is not permissible.

Justice Maheshwari observed:"While the State undoubtedly has the power to amend rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, this power is not unbridled. The power of retrospective legislation cannot be exercised to take away vested rights or to arbitrarily disrupt a selection process that has already resulted in the identification of successful candidates by publication of a provisional merit list. 37. The distinction drawn by the respondents regarding the "provisional" nature of the merit list is untenable. The list was provisional subject to verification of documents, not subject to a fundamental change in the criteria for placement in the merit list itself. Once a candidate has cleared the written examination and gound a place in the merit list based on the announced criteria in line with the extant Rules and the advertisement, a legitimate expectation arises that the selection will be finalized based on the criteria which was advertised at the time of initiation of the recruitment process. 38. The retrospective application of Rule 8(5) creates an anomaly where candidates who competed under one set of rules are now being judged by another, ex post facto. This directly impacts the appellants, who may be pushed down the merit list or ousted entirely by candidates who score lower in the written exam but gain the newly introduced additional marks for contractual service. 39. We also note the argument regarding the General Administration Department’s 2018 Memo and 2021 Memo. While these resolutions reflect a policy to grant weightage, they were executive instructions. The recruitment in question was governed by the statutory 2019 Rules, which did not incorporate these resolutions at the time of the 2019 Advertisements. The State cannot rely on executive instructions to override statutory rules that were in force during the initiation of the recruitment process, especially to the detriment of candidates who had no notice of such weightage or age relaxation. Additionally, when the 2019 Advertisements were issued, there was no whisper about the applicability of the said resolutions; it was only when a challenge was made by the candidates that the State raised the defense, taking a pretext of the aforesaid resolutions, which is an afterthought and not tenable at all."

The judgement reads: "40. It is trite law that participation in a recruitment process or mere

placement on the merit list does not create an indefeasible right to appointment, which was settled by this Court in Shankarsan Dash

v. Union of India"(1991) 3 SCC 47.

It has been followed in a multitude of decisions. However, changing the eligibility criteria for placement in the merit list, after conclusion of the written examination for that purpose, contrary to the extant rules prevalent at the time of the advertisement, cannot be justified on this basis. In the present case, if the additional mark and age relaxation as envisaged under the 2022 Amendment Rules is permitted, it will result in recasting of the provisional merit lis pursuant to the 2019 Advertisements. Such a decision to do away with the merit list must be reasonable and non-arbitrary. The counsel for the Respondent- State had contended that the decision to grant additional marks and age relaxation to the contractual Assistant Engineers is a decision taken in larger public interest, and in order to reward the experience of people serving the State in contractual posts. Be that as it may, while this may be a justification advanced by the State for introducing the 2022 Amendment Rules, it would not justify the application of the 2022 Amendment Rules to the 2019 Advertisements and the recruitment process pursuant thereto. After the examination has been conducted, no public purpose can be served by changing the criteria for selection at this stage.

Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo to take oath as Chief Justice of Patna High Court

Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo will take oath as Chief Justice of Patna High Court on January 7 2026, at a Full Court Welcome Reference in the Centenary Hall of High Court . 

Earlier, on January 5, 2026, Orissa High Court organized a farewell ceremony for Justice Sahoo. A Full Court Reference was held in the Chief Justice's old Court room attended by the Judges of the Court but also by Advocate General Pitambar Acharya, Deputy Solicitor General (DSGI) PK Parhi and High Court Bar Association (OHCBA) President Manoj Kumar Mishra along with several members of the Bar.

Justice Sahoo was remembered for presiding over a Bench to decide age-old criminal appeals which were pending for years. He spoke in Odia language. He recounted his journey as an Advocate for 25 years as well as a Judge for some 12 years. He sought forgiveness for his mistakes.

Justice Sahoo is the third Judge from Odisha to helm the Patna High Court, the other two being former CJIs GB Patnaik and Dipak Misra. 

Also read:Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo to take charge as Chief Justice, Patna High Court

"Fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary": Supreme Court

In Nirbhay Singh Suliya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices V. Viswanathan (author of the main judgment) and Justice J.B. Pardiwala (concurring judgment) delivered their 38-page long  judgment on January 5, 2026, whereby, it reinstated a judicial officer removed from service after 27 years for allegedly granting bail in four cases without citing a specific law. 

Justice Viswanathan concluded:"The order of removal dated 02.09.2015, the order of Appellate Authority dated 17.03.2016 and the impugned order of the High Court are all set aside. The appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till he attained the normal age of superannuation. Since the appellant has been kept out of service for no fault of his, we are of the opinion that full back wages with all consequential benefits should be given to the appellant. Let the monetary benefits be released within a period of eight weeks from today with interest @ 6 per cent. No order as to costs." He added:"Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to all the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts in the country, so as to enable them to draw the attention of the Chief Justices of the High Courts to the same."

Justice Pardiwala observed:"The maxim "Nemo Firut Repente Turpissimus" (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden) is not unexceptional but still is a salutary guideline to judge human conduct, particularly in the field of Administrative Law. The authorities should not keep the eyes totally closed towards the overall estimation in which the delinquent officer was held in the recent past by those who were supervising him earlier. To dunk an officer into the puddle of "doubtful integrity" it is not enough that the doubt fringes on a mere hunch. That doubt should be of such a nature as would reasonably and consciously be entertainable by a reasonable man on the given material. Mere possibility is hardly sufficient to assume that it would have happened. There must be preponderance of probability for the reasonable man to entertain doubt regarding that possibility. Only then there is justification ram an officer with the label ‘doubtful integrity. "

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a wrong judicial order does not equate to misconduct. Disciplinary action requires proof of extraneous influence or corrupt motive, not mere legal error. It held that the inquiry findings perverse. The Court emphasized the High Court's duty under Article 235 to protect honest judicial officers from motivated complaints to preserve judicial independence and fearlessness. The High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf. Justice Sachdeva had authored the High Court's judgement dated 25 July, 2024, wherein, he concluded:"Considering the material available in the present case, it is apparent that the petitioner was holding the post of Additional Sessions Judge with which comes a great responsibility and he was under obligation to conduct himself in a manner befitting the post held by him. He was under duty to conduct the proceedings of bail applications in conformity with the provisions of law. He extended the benefit of bail to some applicants relying on the pronouncement of High Court and refused to grant bail to others without considering those pronouncements. No violation of principles of natural justice or error is found in the procedure followed in the enquiry in the present case. In the absence of any procedural illegality, irregularity in the conduct of departmental enquiry, in the considered opinion of this Court, no interference is warranted and after considering the over all material available in the record and in view of the settled position of law, we do not find any reason to interfere in the order of punishment/removal dated 02.09.2014 and the order of rejection of appeal on 17.03.2016 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." This judgement has been set aside. 

Supreme Court's judgment relied on decisions in MS Bindra v Union of India, K.K. Dhawan vs. Union of India, R.R. Parekh vs. High Court of Gujarat, Sadhna Chaudhary vs. State of U.P., and P.C. Joshi vs. State of U.P.

The appellant, Nirbhay Singh Suliya, served as a Judicial Officer in the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service for 27 years with an unblemished record. At the relevant time, he was posted as First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Khargone. An anonymous, general complaint was lodged by one Jaipal Mehta alleging that the appellant, through his stenographer, was taking bribes to grant bail in cases under the M.P. Excise Act involving seized liquor of 50 bulk litres or more. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, leading to departmental proceedings. 

It was alleged that with "corrupt or oblique motive," the appellant allowed four specific bail applications contrary to Section 59-A of the Excise Act, while rejecting fourteen other similar applications, thereby applying "double standards."

During the inquiry, the complainant was not examined. The prosecution witness (Gendalal Chauhan) did not support the charge. The defence witness, the Public Prosecutor who appeared in all 18 bail applications, testified that the bail grants were "absolutely proper and on proper grounds" and that he perceived no bias.

The Inquiry Officer held Charge-I proved. The Disciplinary Authority (State Government on the High Court's recommendation) removed the appellant from service in 2014. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, upheld the removal in 2024, leading to this appeal.

Supreme Court framed the issues as to whether the order removing the appellant from service based on the inquiry report was justified in law, and whether grounds for interference were made out?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the removal order, and ordered reinstatement with full back wages. It observed that judicial orders alone cannot constitute misconduct without proof of corrupt motive. The settled law that a wrong judicial order, an error of judgment, or a mistake of law does not by itself amount to misconduct warranting disciplinary action. The charge of misconduct must be distinguished from the mere correctness of a judicial verdict. The basis for action must be the officer's conduct, not the legal soundness of the order. (Paras 32-35, 38-39). It added:"There must be circumstances leading to a reasonable inference of extraneous considerations, corrupt motive, or mala fides. A mere hypothesis of error or omission (like not citing a specific statute) is insufficient." (Paras 32, 35, 40) The judgment  highlights the need to protect honest judicial officers from motivated and frivolous complaints. It observed that a "fearless judge is the bedrock of an independent judiciary." The High Court, under Article 235, has a duty to protect honest officers from such "unmerited onslaught." (Paras 27-29, 36-37). 

The Court concluded that for wrong orders where no mala fide is alleged, the proper course is to correct them in appeal/revision and, administratively, to note them in the officer's service record for consideration during promotion or confidential reports. In cases of persistent wrong orders, the remedy is compulsory retirement, not disciplinary proceedings for misconduct. (Para 38).

Indian Succession Act, 1925 amended through Repealing and Amending Act, 2025

Parliament has enacted the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025. Among other amendments, it has amended Indian Succession Act, 1925 to remove mandatory probate requirements based on geography and religion. The pre-existing legal status normalized unequal treatment among citizens. The gazette notification is awaited. It simplifies inheritance and estate planning across the country. 

Probate is a court order that certifies the validity of a will and authorises the executor to distribute the deceased’s assets. A will—be it handwritten, typed, or registered—is legally valid on its own. Probate adds an extra layer of certainty because a court supervises the process. 

The executor or beneficiaries approach a specified court, which issues notices to legal heirs. If no objections are raised, the court grants probate. Once issued, it is a strong safeguard against future disputes. It is difficult to challenge. 

Probate has always been voluntary and is often obtained when families anticipate disputes or when institutions insist on it before transferring assets. But there used to be situations, where it was mandatory.

Probate applications are generally required to be filed within three years from the first formal repudiation of the will. If the deadline/timeline is missed, it weakens legal remedies. 

No stone will be left unturned to unearth the conspiracy behind these serial and fabricated complaints…”,: Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal

Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal has issued an "Important Notice" dated December 31, 2025. It states that "two complaints have been filed with the police, against the Chief Election Commissioner and Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal" in the context of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls ahead of the 2026 Assembly elections in West Bengal, Assam, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry. 

Manoj Agarwal, Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal who has been provided Y-plus category cover of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) has tagged the notice to Union Home Ministry and Department of Personnel and training (DoPT) on Twittee. Agarwal wrote: “It has come to the notice of this office from various press releases that two complaints have been filed with the police, against the Chief Election Commissioner of India and the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.” He adds “the allegations contained therein appear to be premeditated, unsubstantiated and a crude attempt to browbeat the officers tasked with discharging statutory duties in connection with SIR 2026.”

The purpose of Special Intensive Revision is to revise the electoral list due to rapid urbanisation, high levels of migration, the addition of new eligible voters, unreported deaths, and to remove the names of foreign illegal immigrants. 

Article 324 of the Constitution of India and Section 21 (3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, ECI has the power to revise the electoral rolls across the country in any state without prior permission from any authority. Intensive revisions have been carried out 13 times; 1952–56, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983–84, 1987–89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

Prior to West Bengal and other States, similar exercise was undertaken in Bihar ahead of the recent assembly election amid lot of controversy. 

The important notice states that "No stone will be left unturned to unearth the conspiracy behind these serial and fabricated complaints..."

It not clear as to how Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal probe the “conspiracy behind” these complaints.