Mob majority is not democracy: Patna High Court

In Sindhu Devi and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., a Division Bench of Patna High Court comprising Chief Justice Ravi S. Dhavan and Shashank Kumar Singh observed:"The Court is afraid that it does not agree with the Counsel for the Appellants that majority is a democracy. If this be so, would it not be mobocracy? After all democracy functions on sanctions, sanctions of the law. Democratic institutions follow, respect and protect the Rule of Law. Otherwise, majority is not democracy but anarchy Brute majority cannot belittle democratic institutions. Such bad practices lend themselves to dictatorships. This is an example which reflects the evils of having lost 30 years of experience on self Government, even the basic norms of democracy in institutions of self Government have been forgotten. Coming down, now, to realities and the concept under which a motion of no confidence may be considered." The judgement was authored by Chief Justice Dhavan. It was delivered on November 23, 2001. He observed: "Mob majority has been understood as democracy" while adjudicating in a matter of violation of provisions under Sub section (4) of Section 42 and Sub section (3) of Section 44 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993." This decision has been cited in subsequent judgements of the High Court with approval. 

The subsequent Act of 2006 casts an explicit obligation upon the Authority issuing the notice of meeting, be it the Pramukh or the Executive Officer to mention the reasons/charges in the notice. The purpose of this provision is not confined to giving notice to the Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of the meeting for a no confidence motion along with reasons/charges so as to com ply with requirements of natural justice, rather the purpose is clearly a much larger one, to subserve the basic ideology and purpose of Democracy which require free flow of relevant facts to all the members of a democratically elected body if those members are to have any meaningful discussions or deliberations over the concerned issues. The right of the members to have minimum fifteen days of notice alongwith reasons/charges so that they may come ready to participate meaningfully, in the meeting relating to a 'no confidence motion' has an important value which can not be denied either by the Pramukh or the Executive Officer who are obliged to give notice of such meeting once a valid requisition is made by the required number of elected members. This provision requiring mentioning of reasons/charges in the notice of the meeting called to consider a no confidence motion serves the twin purpose of promoting informed debate amongst the members and enabling the office bearer against whom the motion is directed to defend himself against the alleged charges. The Legislature has incorporated such a provision in the Act when it was not there in such clear terms in the earlier Act of 1993, with a purpose which must be given full meaning and play.

The Court also observed that a bare notice without specifying allegation is not enough. "Such a notice calling a motion of no confidence without recording or listing"specify the object for which the meeting is proposed to be called" allegations, is void at the threshold." It added: "A brute majority by members in absence of indicated misconduct cannot decide the fate of a Pramukh or an Uppramukh. This is not democracy."It made it clear that "there is a special obligation which lies on the Executive Officer, Block Development Officer and the Circle Officer to ensure that a motion of no confidence must be strictly in accordance with the Act and the person who is to face must know what the charges are."

 

The Court asked the State "to ensure that sufficient guidelines are given to bureaucracy nearer the Panchayats to refrain from interfering with internal matters of panchayats and not to take sides or be partisan in unsettling local self Government. Further, all those who are obliged to monitor a requisition or a motion of no confidence should be advised not to fall into a fault as in the present case and so easily send a requisition to consider a motion of no confidence to the Panchayat Samiti, without reference to charges attributing misconduct, as is the obligation under law."

 

In the case of Jaimitra Devi vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 10942 of 2024) reported in 2024 SCC online 5882, where the lady is/was the Chairperson of the same Zila Parishad, Saran, the High Court in paragraphs 113 to 116 has held as follows: "113: Section 70(4) (iv) of 'the Act' is very clear. The reasons/charges on the basis of which a 'No Confidence Motion' is to be moved must be part of the notice of the meeting. The legislature has incorporated the same with the purpose so that each and every member must have first hand knowledge of the charges that have been levelled by the requisitionist to convene the special meeting to discuss and deliberate upon the 'No Confidence Motion'."

 

The decision in Sindhu Devi case has been cited with approval in the case of Meena Yadav & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 389, by a Division Bench of the High Court and by Justice Rajiv Roy of the High Court in Priyanka Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024). 

Post decisional hearing violative principle of natural justice, fair play in action and Article 21: Patna High Court

In his judgement in Mukesh Kumar Paswan vs. The State of Bihar, Justice Purnendu Singh of Patna High Court observed: "I find it proper to record here that the Article 47 of the Constitution of India while mandating the duty of the State to raise standards of living and to improve the public health at large and as such State Government enacted Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 with the said objective, but for several reasons, it finds itself on the wrong side of the history. The prohibition has, in fact, given rise to unauthorized trade of liquor and other contraband items. The draconian provision have become handy for the police, who are in tandem with the smugglers. Innovative ideas to hoodwink law enforcing agency have evolved to carry and deliver the contraband. Not only the police official, excise official, but also officers of the State Tax department and the transport department love liquor ban, for them it means big money. The number of cases registered is few against the king pin / syndicate operators in comparison to the magnitude of the cases registered against the poor who consume liquor and those poor people and are prey of hooch tragedy. The life of majority of the poor section of the State who are facing wrath of the Act are daily wagers who are only earning member of their family. The Investigating Officer deliberately does not substantiate the allegations made in the prosecution case by any legal document and such lacunae are left and the same allows the Mafia scot free in want of evidence by not conducting search, seizure and investigation in accordance with law." 

The Court made these observations after hearing the writ petition of Mukesh Kumar Paswan, the petitioner who was posted on the post of Inspector of Police at Bypass Police Station, Patna.  It was alleged that the participation of the petitioner in the sale of illicit liquor along with one chaukidaar, namely, Lalu Paswan, cannot be denied as the godown, in which raid was conducted, is only 500 meters from the police station. The petitioner was suspended by the Director General of Police, Bihar vide Letter No. 142 dated 01.02.2021 for the said reason. A memo of charge contained in Memo No. 1723 dated 06.02.2021 was served to the petitioner. Thereafter, Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Patna vide letter contained in Memo no.41 dated 09.02.2021, issued show cause as to why the petitioner be not held guilty for being negligent in implementation of Excise Prohibition Law which is in violation of Rule-3(1) of the Government Official Conduct Rule, 1976, pursuant to which, the petitioner submitted his detailed show cause reply on 19.03.2021 denying all the allegation. The Inquiry Officer after holding inquiry recommended for imposition of major penalty of dismissal of the petitioner. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority held the petitioner guilty of the charges and passed Penalty Order contained in Memo No. 233 dated 13.04.2022. Aggrieved by the penalty order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 

The Court referred to the principle of “Wednesbury unreasonableness" cited in Municipal Council, Neemuch Vs. Mahadeo Real Estate & Ors., reported in (2019) 10 SCC 738.

The judgement of Justice Singh reads: "....in my opinion, the authorities had pre-determined to impose penalty on the petitioner and proceeded to hold quasi judicial inquiry giving the post-decisional opportunity of hearing which does not sub serve the rule of natural justice and is contrary to the principle of fair play. The authority who embarks upon a postdecisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there is hardly any chance of getting a proper consideration of the representation at such a post-decisional opportunity. Accordingly, I set aside and quash the suspension order no. 21/2021-142 dated 01.02.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), charge memo contained in Memo No. 41 dated 09.02.2021 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and the penalty order contained in Memo no. 233 dated 13.04.2022 (Annexure- 1 to the writ petition) and the subsequent orders, if any, are also hereby set aside and quashed."

The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab vs Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770. The Apex Court has held: "......sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that foundation being removed, structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the present case......"; “Since the foundation of initiation of the departmental proceeding and its conduct have been shown to be entirely illegal, the foundation has to be necessarily removed, as a result of which the structure/work of punishment given to this writ petitioner stood, is bound to fall.” 

It referred to High Court's decision in Ajay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2023), wherein Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad has held that "presumption of guilt has no sanction of law and the same is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is contrary to the principles of fair play in action."

The 24-page long judgement of Justice Singh is against the State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, the Director General of Police, Government of Bihar, the Inspector General of Police, Government of Bihar, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna and the Superintendent of Police City (West), Patna.

Background of Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011

In recent times, land revenue surveys commenced in India over two and half century ago. It is based on the systems adopted in UK and Western Europe. It started with a view of collection of revenue from land. The construction of UK’s rule over India was dependent on survey and maps.  

By the acquisition of the Diwani on August 12, 1765, from the Mughal Emperor, Shah Alam, the East India Company (EIC) obtained effect the ‘Superintendency’ of all the lands, and the collection of all the revenues of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa. 

Under the Royal Farman, dated August 12, 1765, which conferred upon the Company in perpetuity the Diwani authority over the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and the Articles of Agreement between the Nawab of Bengal and the Mughal Emperor dated August 19, 1765, the Company had to be security for the regular payment by the Nawab of the sum of Rs 26 lakhs a year as the royal revenue. Payment was to be made every month at the rate of Rs. 2,16,666-10-9 per month, from the dactory of Patna to Raja Shitab Roy or to whomsoever His Majesty might think proper to nominate, that he might forward the amount paid to the (Imperial) Court. In case, however, the territories of the Nawab were invaded by any foreign enemy, a deduction was to be made from the stipulated revenue in proportion to the damage that might be caused by the enemy. 

-The Royal Farman also provided that, as the Company had to maintain a large army for the protection of the provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, it was to appropriate to its own use whatever surplus might remain out of the revenues of those provinces, after remitting the sum of 26 lakhs of rupees to the Royal Sarkar and providing for the expenses o f the Nizamat. In consequence of its acquisition of the Diwani the Nawab of Moorshedabad consented to accept the annual sum of sicca rupees 53,86,13190 annually as an adequate allowance for the support of the Nizamat. The functions of the office of Diwan were to be exercised by its Resident at the Durbar who acted as the Collector of the King’s revenues under the inspection and control of the Select Committee at Calcutta. 

-The collection of revenues in the province of Bihar was placed under the immediate direction of the Chief at Patna, the Company’s Chief Representative there. He acted jointly with Shitab Roy and was subordinate to the Resident at the Durbar, to whom he had to make consignments of treasure, and to transmit monthly accounts of his office. The Resident was required to send the accounts to the Select Committee at Fort William. All the lands in Bengal and Bihar were considered as belonging to) the Crown or Sovereign of the country, who claimed, subject to what follows, a right to collect rents or revenues from all of them. But no such claim could be made in respect of any lands which were appropriated to charitable and religious purposes.The sources of the revenue o f the Company after the grant o f the Diwani were: (i) Rents of lands, (ii) Duties and Customs, (iii) Farms of exclusive privileges, and (iv) Fines and forfeitures. Rents derived from lands constituted in those days the principal source of revenue.

1767 -James Rennell appointed by EIC to survey the Bengal Presidency. Survey of India as a department of government of India established in 1767. The Survey of India was established to assist the British East India Company in carrying out survey work and to map territory for the purposes of administration, taxation, and defense. By the end of the 19th century, the survey had succeeded in mapping most of British India. It was fully involved in the process of revenue surveying till 1904.

Institution of Councils of Revenue at Moorshedabad and Patna under the direction of the Court of Directors, dated June 30, 1769.

1772 - When Shitab Roy was deprived of the office of Naib Dewan of the province of Bihar, the execution of the duties of that office temporarily devolved on the Patna Council of Revenue under an order of the Supreme Council dated at Fort William May 7, 1772. Revenue unit/department established.

1793 -East India Company fixed land revenues in perpetuity with the “Permanent Settlement” in 1793 in Bengal.

1815 -Colin Mackenzie appointed first Surveyor General of India.

1819 - Holt Mackenzie, Secretary, Board of Commissioners gave an advise for land survey, land title and tax ascertainment. 

1822 - Regulation VII framed to make property more secure and valuable because the stability of the government and its revenue were dependent upon the stability and security of property. Advice of Holt Mackenzie implemented, land tax 30% of land rental.

1833 - Regulation under William Bentinck provided for land map and registers.  

1835 -Lt. Vingate one of key officials of Engineering Core was appointed head of land survey. He was asked to prepare a report. 

1860 -Revenue Dept and established in a formal way. 

1875 -Bengal Survey Adhiniyam framed. 

1885 - Bengal (Bihar) Kashikari Adhiniyam framed.

1893 -Joint Memorial by five local associations of Bengal showing cause against the Cadastral Survey of North Bihar reached UK’s House of Commons.

1898-1920- Cadastral Survey undertaken under Bengal (Bihar) Kashtkari Adhiniyam, 1885. Cadastral Survey: The word 'cadastral' is the adjective of the word 'cadastre' which means a public records of the extent, value and ownership of land for purposes of taxation. This type of survey involves the preparation of (1) village maps showing the boundaries of groups of holdings, (2) large scale plans of survey field showing the boundaries of each holding, topographical details and all measurements, and (3) land registers giving the number, nature, tenure, area assessment and reputed ownership of each holding. This survey is repeated from time to time when changes occur in occupation and in the boundaries of fields particularly when such changes area too numerous to be dealt with the ordinary revenue staff. The term 'cadastral' has been derived from the French word 'cadastre' which means public register of ownership of parcel of land. In fiscal terms, it means a register of properties according to their value.

1904 -Each state of India made responsible for cadastral surveys in 1904. 

March 18, 1911 -The Bihar Government Estates (Khas-Mahal) Manual, 1911 farmed.

1914 -Final Report on the Survey and Settlement Operations in the District of Patna, 1907-1912 published by Bihar and Orissa Government Press under John Francis William James. 

Government of India Act established dual administration for law making by Centre and States, land and revenue was kept in the State list.

1926 -Final report on the survey and settlement operations in the Darbhanga District, 1896 to 1903 published by Superintendent, Govt. Print., Bihar and Orissa under J. H. Kerr (John Henry)

1934 - Bihar Adhibhuti sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1934 (Bihar and Odisha) enacted. 

1935 - Land revenue is in State list under Government of India Act .

1947- Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 enacted.

1950 -Land revenue in State list, Constitution of India  

-Land Reforms Act के प्रावधानों के अनुसार जमींदारो/मध्यवर्तियों का उन्मूलन हो गया तथा उनके द्वारा रिर्टन समर्पित किये गये। उन्मूलन के प्रश्चात बिहार सरकार एकमात्र भू-मालिक हो गयी तथा राज्य के जोतदार रैयत हो गए।

The process of abolition of zamindari completed in 1956, but before the abolition, proprietary interest in land was vested in the proprietors of the estate in which the land was comprised. The estates were of three classes as follows: 

a) Permanently settled estates.

b) Temporarily settled estates

c) Government estates

The permanently settled estates used to belong to those estates, the proprietors of which took engagement with the EIC to pay the land revenue demand assessed in accordance with Regulation I of 1793 (known as Permanent Settlement Regulation). Temporarily settled estates were of two categories, firstly, these estates were the estates of those persons who for one reason or the other failed to take out engagement with the EIC for payment of land-revenue demand assessed at the time, and secondly the estates which were held revenue-free on invalid or unjustifiable titles. The lands fall under category of government lands were (a) waste land, (b) thanadari land for police station, (c) lands escheated to Government in default of legal heirs or claimants, and (d) lands forfeited for any State offence.

Prior to the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the interests in land used to be governed in accordance with the Perma­nent Settlement introduced by the East India Company way back in 1793, which had given rise to the following hierarchy of interests :

1. The Zamindar : legally a “proprietor”, but acting as an intermediary of the state in the collection of rent from tenants. The amount payable to the state was fixed in cash, in perpetuity, and was supposed to represent nine-tenths of what the zamindars received in rent from the tenants. The zamindars were, however, allowed the right to fix their own terms with tenants.

2. The Tenure-holder: “primarily a person who has acquired from a proprietor or from another tenure-holder a right to hold land for the purpose of collecting rents or bringing rents or bringing it under cultivation by establish­ing tenants on it, and includes also the successors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right” (Bihar Tenancy Act of 1885).

3. The Occupancy Raiyat : a rent-paying holder of land having the right of occupancy on the land held by him “for the purpose of cultivating it by himself, or by members of his family or by hired servants or with the aid of partners, and includes also the successors-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right” 

4. The Non-occupancy Raiyat: a rent-paying holder of land not having the right of occupancy on land temporarily in his possession.

5. The Under-raiyat: a rent-paying holder of land having temporary possession of a holding under a raiyat.

6. The Mazdur: a wage labourer having no right in land. 

Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, popularly called the Zamindari Abolition Act, abolished intermediary tenures. At the time of zamindari abolition in Bihar, there were 205,977 revenue-paying, permanently settled estates, representing 90 percent of the total area of the state.19 It did not  bring under-ryots, the actual cultivators of land, in contact with the state. The zamindaris were abolished in three phases, the last phase beginning on April 1, 1956. This phase was characterized by absentee landlordism. The Zamindari Abolition Act allowed ex-landlords to retain land in their khas possession. The blanket provision was not in consonance with the national guidelines which indicated that zamindars should be allowed to resume land up to three times the economic holding. The Patna High Court held the view that “khas possession” includes constructive possession i.e. possession through hired servants. It was only in the year 1964 that the Supreme Court overruled this view and held that ‘khas possession’ connotes only personal possession. 

The rights of intermediaries in Gair Mazarua Khas land were abolished under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and all such lands were vested in the Government. Gair Mazarua Khas Land means cultivable land retained by ex- intermediaries and not settled with raiyats. The government has issued instructions from time to time to revenue officers to examine all cases of unsettled Gair Mazarua Khas land and to settle such land with persons of eligible categories, such as scheduled caste, scheduled tribes, backward classes and the landless persons at fair and equitable rent. 

Gair Mazarua Aam land means uncultivated land for public use as grazing ground, play.

1953 - The Bihar Government Estates (Khas-Mahal) Manual, 1953 framed.

1954- Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 enacted. 

1956 -Bihar Consolidation & Holding & Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 enacted. बिहार जोत समेकन एवं खण्डकरण निवारण अधिनियम, 1956. 

1960s -The Revisional Survey of land started after the abolition of zamindari in 1950 but not 12 districts of Bihar were covered. “Revisional Survey” means survey operations initiated and conducted on the basis of the blue print map of the cadastral survey in order to update the land records.

1961- भू-हदबंदी अधिनियम, 1961 enacted.

1974-बिहार साहूकार अधिनियम, 1974 enacted

2009-बिहार भूमि विवाद अधिनियम, 2009 enacted 

-In Abhay Shankar Sinha vs The State Of Bihar (2009), the Patna High Court dealt with "Khas Mahal" land. It recalled that in Bhola Ram Chaudhary and others vs. State of Bihar (1989), it observed:-"Let us therefore examine whether Khas Mahal was/is intermediary. What is, therefore, Khas Mahal ? The word “Khas Mahal” is nothing but what is known in English as "Government Estate". That is defined in the Khas Mahal as follows:-

    "Meaning of Government estates":- The term Government estates is used to mean estates under the direct management of Government whether these are the property of Government or are the estate of private individuals brought under the direct management of Government. It may also mean any land which is the property of Government and as such would include estates owned by Government which have been let in farm and leased for periods and also the waste lands but would not include lands belonging to other departments of Government, e.g. road-side lands, so long as they are not relinquished by the department concerned to the Collector for management. This manual unless it so appears from the context, deals with the principles, policy and procedure for Khas management of estates under the direct management of Government.’

From the above there can be no difficulty in appreciating that Khas Mahal is nothing but Government Estate. It is the Estate of the Government. Since it is Estate of the Government, it cannot be a Zamindari. Not being a Zamindari a Khas Mahal cannot vest in the State of Bihar. It has always been in the State of Bihar itself." 

-In his book ‘Imagining India’, Nandan Nilekani refers to Bank’s economist, Hernando de Soto's book 'The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else' to argue that national ID system would be a big step for land markets to facilitate right to property and undoing of abolition of right to property in 1978 in order to bring down poverty! In the post-capitalist and post-socialist era, such assumptions of triumph have been found to be deeply flawed. In fact, even the title of the books sounds weird in the post-financial crisis era.

2010-बिहार कृषि भूमि (गैर कृषि प्रयोजनों के लिए सम्परिवर्तन) अधिनियम, 2010 enacted

2011- बिहार भूमि दाखिल खारिज अधिनियम, 2011 enacted

December, 22, 2011-Bihar Gazette publishes The Bihar Special Survey and Settlement Act, 2011

The Act has 4 chapters and 28 sections in the original form.

The Act is aimed at preparation and maintenance of to-date record of rights for revenue and land resource management, Computerisation of land records in uniform way to address gap between computer data and to-date ground realities

Conclusive ascertainment of current title, possession and classification of lands - for agricultural credit, subsidy, relief and insurance related activities

-Section 3 empowers the government to issue notification for carrying out special survey, and settlement in a part of the whole of State

-Section 5-Self declaration of land holders-Amin and Kanoongo to prepare a genealogical table of the land holders and yaddast register after Secttion 3 notification-a land holder may submit a self declaration with respect to land held by him/her before the Assistant Settlement Officer-Settlemet Officer will issue a verification certificate   

-Section 7 (5) provides for identification & demarcation of public lands, Government lands, lands treated as common property resource and the like-to record it in the Record of Rights

-Section 12 provides for Publication of record of rights

-Section 13 provides for Consolidation operations after special survey and settlement under the Bihar Consolidation & Holding & Prevention of fragmentation Act, 1956.

-Section 14 provides for maintenance of records in digital form.

-Section 20 Act overrides all other laws (section 20) 

-Section 21 makes state a party in Certain cases"

-Section 23 states that only Patna High Court and Supreme Court can entertain any suit or proceeding r/w Section 12

-Section 28-power to make Rules

-Section 25-technical guidelines 

July 12, 2012-Rules framed & published with technical guidelines 

March 28, 2014 -In Maya Devi vs. The State of Bihar, the Patna High Court held that an entry as to land being Gair Mazarua Aam, Gair Mazarua Khas or Qaisar-e-Hind in the cadastral survey over 100 years old with regard to nature of land is not an entry for all times in future but an entry with regard to existing state of affairs then. The petitioners cannot be evicted by the State in any manner nor can just compensation for acquisition be denied to them till such time the dispute is resolved and till the title of the State is declared.

September 4, 2017 - Bihar Gazette publishes the Bihar Special Survey & Settlement (Amendment) Act, 2017

February 27, 2019 -  Bihar Special Survey & Settlement Rules amended. 

March 27, 2019 -Bihar Gazette publishes Amendment Act, 2019. Bihar Special Survey & Settlement Technical guidelines amended. 

November 2019-Section 56 of NITI Aayog's Model Conclusive Land Titling Act states: Compulsory use of biometric identification-The Authority may, by notification from time to time in this regard, appoint a date from which it shall provide compulsory use of one or more than one particular personal identification system such as biometric authentication, Iris diagram or finger-print,or any other such method for establishing the identity of any person, for the purpose of any transaction or transfer of any Immovable Property recorded in the Register of Titles.

Section 65 (2) (m) of the Model Act under Power of the State Government to make Rules states: "use of biometric authentication including AADHAR or other identification."

-NITI Aayog shared this Model Act and the Mahatashtra Land Titling Act to the States. 

September 2020 -The special survey work under phase-1 started in September 2020 at 5228 villages, 207 camps spread over 89 circles in 20 districts while under phase-2, work started in July 2021 at 4,668 villages, 197 camps in 90 circles spread over 20 districts. “Under phase -3, survey will start in around 10,000 villages in 114 circles covering 18 districts,” the ACS said during his presentation. In Bihar, the last cadastral survey, a process to ascertain land boundaries of through manual survey, was held 1911, during the British rule. In the last one century, a few revisional surveys have been held.

November 5, 2021 -The ongoing special survey for updating land records being carried out in a phased manner across Bihar will be completed by December 2023, state’s revenue and land reforms department informed chief minister at a review meeting. Additional chief secretary (revenue and land reforms department) briefed the CM on the status of the special survey underway in different parts of the state. The special survey work under phase-1 started in September 2020 at 5228 villages, 207 camps spread over 89 circles in 20 districts while under phase-2, work started in July 2021 at 4,668 villages, 197 camps in 90 circles spread over 20 districts. “Under phase -3, survey will start in around 10,000 villages in 114 circles covering 18 districts”. 

May 9, 2023 -Bihar Gazette Notification May 9, 2023 and relevant text of the Section 7 of Aadhaar Act which says, Aadhaar Number is voluntary but news reports in Bihar say, it is mandatory! The fifth sentence in the last paragraph of the Bihar Gazette notification dated May 9, 2023 clearly says, "Aadhaar authentication" is "on voluntary basis". It has to be voluntary because of Sections 7 of the Aadhaar Act 2016. The second para of Sections 7 of the Aadhaar Act 2016 implies that Aadhaar is not mandatory for anything. It shows that due to some communication gap or ignorance of relevant legal provisions, there is misreporting of facts regarding Aadhaar being mandatory. 

July 2024 - CM seeks completion of Special Survey by July 2025. Special survey commences in 45,000 villages to digitize land data with a one-year time frame for completion.

-Union Budget unveiled plans for 'Bhu-Aadhaar' unique IDs for rural land parcels and digitization of urban land records by 2027.

September 2024- Bihar revenue and land reforms department minister is reported to have said that people should not panic as no deadline has been fixed for submitting self-declaration either online or offline to join the process. Earlier, the landowners had to submit self-declaration within a month of the declaration of Bihar special land survey.

The cadastre is managed by the state government.  Generation and maintenance of the cadastral records is different in different states. The current cadastral maps in all states and union territories are usually based on a graphical representation. 

-Bhu-Aadhar : Unique Land Parcel Identification Number (ULPIN)

Unique Land Parcel Identification Number (ULPIN) is part of the Digital India Land Records Modernization Programme (DILRMP). It is a 14-digit identification number accorded to a land parcel based on the longitude and latitude coordinates of the land parcel and depends on detailed surveys and geo-referenced cadastral maps. ULPIN is a Single, Authoritative Source of Truth for information on any parcel of land or property to provide Integrated Land Services to the citizens as well as all stakeholders. The Unique Land Parcel Identification Number (ULPIN) system is based on international standard which complies, with Electronic Commerce Code Management Association (ECCMA) standard and Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standard.

Generation of ULPIN- There is a formula to generate and assign ECCMA (Electronic Commerce Code Management Association) Standard prescribed 14 digit Unique ID “Property Natural Identifier Unit” (PNIU) using the parcel Geo Referenced coordinate of vertices

This computationally generated Unique ID would be organically dependent on Parcel vertices expressed in Lat/Long coordinates “property Natural Identifier Lot” (PNIL) and Unique ID (PNIU) would spatially be pointing to the surface of the parcel.

For all the special land survey documents and technical guidelines refer  to https://dlrs.bihar.gov.in/compendium.pdf 

Dr. Gopal Krishna

The author is a lawyer and a bilingual philosophy and public policy researcher. He has given expert testimony before the Indian, European and German Parliamentary Committees in the matter of national and international legislations on the land acquisition, national identification, hazardous waste trade, corporate code of conduct, civil liability for nuclear damage, consumer protection and biological diversity. E-mail:forcompletejustice@gmail.com

Supreme Court dismisses appeal of ED, sets aside orders of Special Court taking cognizance against accused

In Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, ED had filed complaints against the respondents and others under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The complaint is for an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, which is punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Both private respondents, namely, Bibhu Prasad Acharya and Adityanath Das. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents and other accused persons. Both of them had filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the cognizance taken by the Trial Court and prayed for quashing the complaints on the ground that both of them were public servants and, therefore, it was necessary to obtain prior sanction under sub-section (1) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the respondents' contentions and quashed the orders of taking cognizance passed by the Special Court on the complaints only as against the said respondents. The ED approached the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court's bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih observed: "17. Section 65 makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to all proceedings under the PMLA, provided the same are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the PMLA. The words ‘All other proceedings’ include a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b) of the PMLA. We have carefully perused the provisions of the PMLA. We do not find that there is any provision therein which is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC. Considering the object of Section 197(1) of the CrPC, its applicability cannot be excluded unless there is any provision in the PMLA which is inconsistent with Section 197(1). No such provision has been pointed out to us. Therefore, we hold that the provisions of Section 197(1) of CrPC are applicable to a complaint under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA."

The judgement was authored by Justice Oka. It reads: "18. Section 71 gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the PMLA notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Section 65 is a prior section which specifically makes the provisions of the CrPC applicable to PMLA, subject to the condition that only those provisions of the CrPC will apply which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA. Therefore, when a particular provision of CrPC applies to proceedings under the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 71 (1) cannot override the provision of CrPC which applies to the PMLA. Once we hold that in view of Section 65 of the PMLA, Section 197(1) will apply to the provisions of the PMLA, Section 71 cannot be invoked to say that the provision of Section 197(1) of CrPC will not apply to the PMLA."

It also notes "A provision of Cr. P.C made applicable to the PMLA by Section 65, will not be overridden by Section 71. Those provisions of CrPC which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65 will continue to apply to the PMLA, notwithstanding Section 71. If Section 71 is held applicable to such provisions of the CrPC, which apply to the PMLA by virtue of Section 65, such interpretation will render Section 65 otiose. No law can been interpreted in a manner which will render any of its provisions redundant."

It concluded: "In this case, the cognizance of the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, has been taken against the respondents accused without obtaining previous sanction under Section 197(1) of CrPC.Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is correct. We must clarify that the effect of the impugned judgment is that the orders of the Special Court taking cognizance only as against the accused B.P.Acharya and Adityanath Das stand set aside. The order of cognizance against the other accused will remain unaffected." The Court endorsed the verdict of Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao of Telangana High Court. 

It is not clear from the judgement as to why the order of cognizance against the other accused will remain unaffected. The judgement was delivered on November 6, 2024.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Courts

The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them. 

The Supreme Court has been conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal case from one High Court to another High Court or from a Court subordinate to another High Court. If satisfied that cases involving the same or substantially the same questions of law are pending before it and one or more High Courts or before two or more High Courts and that such questions are substantial questions of general importance, the Supreme Court may withdraw a case or cases pending before the High Court or High Courts and dispose of all such cases itself. Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, International Commercial Arbitration can also be initiated in the Supreme Court.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any judgement, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. 

Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a) that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. 

In criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. 

Parliament is authorised to confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.

The Supreme Court also has a very wide appellate jurisdiction over all Courts and Tribunals in India in as much as it may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory of India.

The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters which may specifically be referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. 

There are provisions for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution and other statutes. 

Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 are also filed directly in the Supreme Court.

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has been vested with power to punish for contempt of Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 

In case of contempt other than the contempt referred to in Rule 2, Part-I of the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of the Supreme Court, 1975, the Court may take action (a) Suo motu, or (b) on a petition made by Attorney General, or Solicitor General, or (c) on a petition made by any person, and in the case of a criminal contempt with the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.

Under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. 

Order XLVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provides that the Supreme Court can reconsider its final judgment or order by way of a curative petition on limited grounds after the dismissal of review petition.

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION

In India, a writ petition may be moved not only by an aggrieved individual but also by a public-spirited individual or group of persons in matters in which interest of the public at large is involved. The Court can be moved either by filing a writ petition or by addressing a letter to the Chief Justice of India highlighting the question of public importance for invoking this jurisdiction. On several occasions, the Supreme Court has treated letters, telegrams, postcards, and news reports as writ petitions. Such a concept is popularly known as ‘Public Interest Litigation’ (PIL). This judicial innovation of the PIL system is unique to the Supreme Court of India.

LEGAL AID

If a person belongs to the poor section of the society having annual income of less than Rs. 5,00,000/- or belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, a victim of natural calamity, is a woman or a child or a mentally ill or otherwise disabled person or an industrial workman or is in custody including custody in protective home, he/she is entitled to get free legal aid from the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee. The aid so granted by the Committee includes cost of preparation of the matter and all applications connected therewith, in addition to providing an Advocate for preparing and arguing the case. Any person desirous of availing legal service through the Committee has to make an application to the Secretary and hand over all necessary documents concerning his case to it. The Committee after ascertaining the eligibility of the person provides necessary legal aid to him/her.

Persons belonging to the middle income group i.e. with income above Rs. 60,000/- but under Rs. 7,50,000/- per annum are also eligible to get legal aid from the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Society on nominal payments. The Supreme Court also has a Mediation Centre which mediates and resolves matters that are referred to it by the Court.

HIGH COURTS

The High Court stands at the head of a State’s judicial administration. There are 25 High Courts in the country, three having jurisdiction over more than one State. Among the Union Territories, Delhi, and Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh have a High Court of their own. Other five Union Territories come under the jurisdiction of different High Courts. 

Each High Court comprises a Chief Justice and such other Judges as the President may, from time to time, appoint. The Chief Justice of a High Court is appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Governor of the State. The procedure for appointing puisne Judges is the same except that the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned is also consulted. Judges in the High Court hold office until the age of 62 years and are removable in the same manner as a Judge of the Supreme Court. To be eligible for appointment as a Judge one must be a citizen of India and have held a judicial office in India for ten years or must have practised as an Advocate of a High Court or two or more such Courts in succession for a similar period.

Each High Court has power to issue to any person within its jurisdiction directions, orders, or writs including writs which are in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for enforcement of Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose. This power may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or residence of such person is not within those territories.

Each of the 25 High Court have powers of superintendence over all Courts within its jurisdiction. It can call for returns from such Courts, make and issue general rules and prescribe forms to regulate their practice and proceedings and determine the manner and form in which book entries and accounts shall be kept. These  25 High Courts are: Bombay High Court, Calcutta High Court, Madras High Court, Allahabad High Court, Karnataka High Court, Patna High Court, Guwahati High Court, Odisha High Court, Rajasthan High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Kerala High Court, Gujarat High Court, Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Himachal Pradesh High Court, Sikkim High Court, Chhattisgarh High Court, Uttarakhand High Court, Jharkhand High Court, Tripura High Court, Manipur High Court, Meghalaya High Court, Telangana High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, and Jammu & Kashmir High Court.

There is also an Advocate General for each State appointed by the Governor, who holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. An Advocate General must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. His duty is to give advice to State Governments upon such legal matters and to perform such other duties of legal character, as may be referred or assigned to him by the Governor. The Advocate General has the right to speak and take part in the proceedings of the State Legislature without the right to vote.

LOK ADALATS

Lok Adalats is an alternative dispute redressal mechanism to arrive at amicable settlement of disputes outside of court. Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats. Every award of Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or order of a Tribunal and shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. The Act also provides that with respect to the cases decided at Lok Adalat, the court fees paid by the parties is refunded.

Justices Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh and Ashok Kumar Pandey join as High Court judges with concurrence of Chief Minister, Governor

Justice Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey joined as judges of the Patna High Court on October 4, 2024. Now the Court has 35 judges. The Supreme Court Collegium comprising of Chief Justice of India, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice B. R. Gavai had recommended the names of both the judicial officers for appointment as judges of the High Court on September 24, 2024. On May 7, 2024, the Chief Justice of the High Court had recommended the elevation of these judicial officers in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues-Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi. The Chief Minister and the Governor of the State of Bihar concurred with the recommendation. 

In terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, the judges of the Supreme Court conversant with the affairs of the High Court were consulted in order to ascertain the fitness and suitability of the candidates. For the purpose of assessing the merit and suitability of these candidates for elevation to the High Court, the Supreme Court Collegium scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record. It also perused the observations made by the Department of Justice in the file. Both the judges were found suitable for appointment as High Court Judges. The inputs provided by the Department of Justice in the file indicated that they enjoy a good personal and professional image; and that nothing adverse has come to notice against their integrity. 

While considering both the proposals, the Supreme Court Collegium had also taken note of the fact that the proposal involved non-recommendation of some senior judicial officers. Cogent and good reasons were recorded by the Collegium of the High Court for not recommending their names. It was in agreement with the High Court Collegium for overlooking them. 

In his first order as judge of the High Court as part of the division bench which included Justice P. B. Bajanthri, Justice Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh authored the order in Sanjay Kumar vs. The State of Bihar  which set aside the order dated February 2, 2024 passed by the Excise Secretary, Patna in Excise Revision Case No. 45 of 2023 as well as the order dated November 27, 2023 passed by Excise Commissioner, Patna in Excise Appeal No. 151 of 2023 because the orders were "not sustainable in the eye of law". It all started with the recovery of 2 liters of Indian made foreign liquor and 180 ml. of beer from the possession of four accused persons named in the F.I.R from a Scorpio vehicle. A case was registered on May 15, 2023 under Sections 272, 273/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2022. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that only a meager quantity of illicit liquor was recovered from the vehicle in question. The petitioner was rightful owner of the said vehicle but he was not apprehended at the time of seizure of illicit liquor. The counsel submitted that proper notice was not served upon the petitioner. The respondent authority violated the cardinal principle of natural justice. Besides the State of Bihar, there were eight respondents, namely, the Commissioner, Excise Department, Government of Bihar, the Director General of Police, Police Department, Government of Bihar, the Inspector General of Police, Darbhanga Division, the District Magistrate, Madhubani, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaynagar, Madhubani, the Superintendent of Police, Madhubani, the Officer-In-Charge of Jaynagar Police Station, Madhubani and the Investigation Officer of Jaynagar, Madhubani. The Excise Superintendent, Saharsa had auctioned the petitioner's vehicle on December 7, 2022. 

The Court's order reads: "it is crystal clear that there is recovery of a meager quantity of 2 liters of Indian made foreign liquor and 180 ml. of bear and the vehicle has been auctioned at Rs. 1,17,000/- which is totally disproportionate to the offence committed and conscious of this Court does not allow to impose harsh penalty for recovery of meager quantity of illicit liquor. Such disproportionate fine should not be allowed to impose. Imposition of fine also does not commensurate with the offence committed regarding recovery of 2 liters of Indian made foreign liquor and 180 ml. of bear. That apart, petitioner is not habitual offender for the offences under Excise Act and Rules."

Since October 4, 2024, Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey is part of the High Court's division bench led by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. The bench has delivered eleven judgements during October 21-29, 2024 but none of them was authored by Justice Pandey. 

Excerpts from Supreme Court's State of the Judiciary: A report on Infrastructure, Budgeting, Human Resources and ICT

According to the responses received from the High Courts, Constitution Day Celebrations and Chief Justices’ Conference, Supreme Court of India, 26-27 November, 2022, an in-house software named ‘Supreme Court e-register’ has been developed by the Patna High Court to monitor and track the orders of the Supreme Court and communicate them to the District Courts concerned. Notably, each court has been given the flexibility to choose its preferred online platform by the e-Committee, resulting in a lack of uniformity in the virtual hearing process, posing challenges for both litigants and advocates. For instance, CISCO Webex VC licences have been provided to judges of the Patna High Court. In contrast, Microsoft Teams VC licences have been provided to the Judicial Officers of the State of Bihar. 

Although Court premises should be situated where there is end-to-end connectivity of public transport systems, getting sufficient and suitable land is one of the major hurdles to achieve the goal of self-sufficiency in terms of infrastructure. The main roadblock in construction of new court complexes is identification of land in proper area/location. Identification and allotment of land is the responsibility of the State Government. The lands suggested by the local bodies are in isolated places and far away from the prominent places viz. bus stop/railway station, Tehsil office, Police Station. The court complexes are often located in the heart of the town in densely populated areas which does not leave any scope for expansion of additional courtrooms. This presents a unique challenge as there is no scope for additional construction within the existing premises and no suitable land is usually available in the vicinity for additional construction. In Bihar, there are 16 sub-divisions where the State Government is yet to propose suitable land. Land is yet to be identified in locations that are easily accessible to the public, free from encumbrances. Notably, land initially identified for the court complex at Gopalganj, Bihar, turned out to be a moratorium land. 

In an incident, two police officers allegedly assaulted an Additional District Judge in his chamber. Such events inside the court premises shows that it is time that comprehensive steps are taken to ensure that court spaces are secure. Source: “Bihar police officers beat up judge for ‘summoning’ them”, The Times of India, 18 November 2021, available at
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/madhubani-judge-roughed-up-by-two-cops/articleshow/
87787214.cms

This issue was raised in the Chief Justices’ Conference 2022 where the following resolution was passed:

In May 2022, a dilapidated court boundary of Biharsharif District Court collapsed during the court proceedings, killing a woman. Source:1 killed, 6 injured as court wall collapses in Biharsharif’, Hindustan Times, dated 13 May 2022, https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/patna-news/1-killed-6-injured-as-court-wall-collapses-in-biharsharif-101652440150754.html

The Supreme Court took note of the incidents across the country affecting day-to-day functioning of the courts, in Pradyuman Bisht v. Union of India (2022) and observed that: “1. Would not hope for the litigants who visit the temples of justice dwindle, if the very halls of justice lack the shield of security? How can the litigants secure justice for them when those entrusted to render justice are themselves insecure? 2.…Preserving the sanctity of a court as a space where justice is administered and the rule of law upheld being non-negotiable, it is critical that judicial institutions take comprehensive steps to safeguard the well-being of all stakeholders. Such incidents, that too in court premises, are deeply concerning and pose significant risks to the safety of not only judges but lawyers, court staff, litigants and the general public.”

The National Court Management Systems (NCMS) Committee of the Supreme Court in its Baseline Report suggested that there should be segregated and dedicated alighting points for judges’ vehicles, from where judges are able to reach their chambers on various floors through separate lifts and stairs to avoid entry by unauthorised persons.

India’s highest court presently has only 3 female judges (9.3%) out of its working strength of 32 judges, as of 1 October 2023.118 Similarly, there are only 103 female judges (13.42%) out of 767 permanent and additional judges in the High Courts across India. In the district judiciary, female judges comprise 36.33% of the total judge strength.

SUGGESTIONS OF JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

Justice Sanjiv Khanna of Supreme Court of India made the following suggestions in the Working Session on ‘State of the Judiciary’ at the Supreme Court of India on 26 November 2023 (Constitution Day Celebrations).

SHORT TERM GOAL : Reducing present case pendency
LONG TERM GOAL : Reducing case life cycle

1. Modernising trial proceedings through video conferencing
a. Explore the systemization of video recording in court proceedings. Audio recordings can serve as an alternative when video infrastructure is unavailable. This will lead to effective monitoring of district judiciary by promoting timely court sittings and deterring unnecessary adjournments.
b. Emphasis on capturing evidence stage witness statements for comprehensive documentation and verification.
2. Automated transcription and translation
a. There is an urgent need to transcribe trials using automated tools. Real-time transcription could be a solution to the shortage of stenographers and sluggishness in trials by expediting the documentation process. Digitised transcripts will fasten the supply of trial court records to the appellate court.
b. Speech to Text mechanisms may be used for dictation. It would further enable automated translation from vernacular languages to English.
3. Optimum Approach - Human Resource Management
a. The procedure for calculation of sanctioned posts must take into consideration the grassroot realities and performance indicators.
b. There is a need to move towards an optimum and need-based approach. For example, the district judiciary, specially the CBI Courts of New Delhi, are facing the issue of lack of work due to delay by prosecution in moving the trial. This contributes to underutilisation of judicial time. There is a need for reallocation of judicial work in such cases.
c. Optimum analysis in this regard should be conducted periodically by the State Judicial Academies under the supervision of the High Court.
4. Discounting traffic/police challans and Section 138 NI Act cases from the case pendency. As bulk contributors of pendency, they must be dealt summarily or by Lok Adalats.
5. Establishing stringent timelines for completion of trial, akin to commercial laws of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Commercial Courts Act. The qualitative component of justice must not be compromised in an effort to eliminate delay or clear the arrears.
6. Old criminal appeals pending in the High Court should be allocated to each judge/bench.
7. Measuring Court Performance
a. There is a need to formulate a comprehensive strategy that reflects on and analyses the performance of the courts. Establishment of a robust internal process will foster the objectivity, reliability and comparability of data.
b. An objective grading system for performance assessment of district judges with a bell-curve approach should be adopted. Judges may be divided into performance categories based on where their performance falls on the bell curve. Commonly, these categories include: Judges in the high and above-average categories may receive positive reinforcement, while those in the below-average or poor performer categories may receive targeted feedback and improvement plans. This will ensure transparency in the grading process to maintain the credibility of the performance evaluation system. 

Source: State of the Judiciary A report on Infrastructure, Budgeting, Human Resources and ICT, November 2023