Supreme Court sets aside judgement authored by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi in a morder case from Rohtas

In Rajesh Upadhayay vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manmohan, N.V. Anjaria delivered a 24-page long judgement dated December 18, 2025, wherein it set aside the 6-page order dated August 28, 2024 authored by Justice Vipul M.Pancholi as part of Division Bench of Patna High Court in Sheo Narayan Mahto @ Sheo Narayan Singh @ Shiv Narayan Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2024).   

This appeal was filed in the High Court against the judgment of conviction dated April 3, 2024 and order of sentence dated April 9, 2024 rendered by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge 19th, Rohtas at Sasaram in a Sessions Trial of 2022, which arose out of Baghaila P.S. case of 2021where-under and whereby, the Trial Court had convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offences under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offences under Sections 342/149 of the IPC, To undergo imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 147 of the IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a term of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offences under Sections 504/149 of the IPC, to undergo imprisonment for a term of two year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 148 of the IPC. The appellant was also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.  

The appellant-original complainant questioned judgment and order dated August 28, 2024 by the High Court, whereby the High Court had suspended the sentence imposed on respondent No.2 and released him on bail during the pendency of the Appeal. Supreme Court's judgment records that the appellant-informant’s father named Krishna Behari Upadhyay was murdered. As per the prosecution story, on December 11, 2021 at about 4.30 p.m., the appellant along with his father Krishna Behari Upadhyay reached at Mahavir temple of the village to light ‘Diya’ and to do ‘Arti’. At that time, the accused persons and the co-villagers Bashishthha Singh alias Munna Singh, Ajit Singh, Naga Kumar, Raghunandan Kumar and Sheo Narayan Mahto- respondent No.2 herein wielding the arms and weapons reached, at the temple. Hurling abuses, all of them surrounded the appellant and his father, telling said Krishna Behari Upadhyay that he was not performing Puja and was engaging in politics. The prosecution case was that  that Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay tried to close the main gate of the temple, but the accused persons pushed the gate and made a forcible entry inside the temple. Ajit Singh and Raghunandan Kumar caught hold of Krishna Behari Upadhyay and Munna Singh was stated to have fired at him with a revolver. It was stated respondent No.2 also had a country-made pistol with him and that he as well as another Rajesh Mehto alias Rajesh Kumar were instigatively uttering that the Pandit should be killed as he was excessively indulging in politics. Because of gun fire shots, Krishna Behari Upadhyay fell down inside the temple premises and was in a pool of blood. The appellant somehow managed to flee away from the place and informed his family members. Om Prakash Tiwari and Ritesh Mukhia who were the family members, as well as the other co-villagers reached at the place of the offence. They saw Munna Singh, Ajit Kumar, Naga Kumar, Raghunandan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Mahto alias Rajesh as also respondent No.2-Sheo Narayan Mahto running away in the Eastern direction. Upon being taken to the hospital, Krishna Behari Upadhyay was declared dead. A Fardbeyan was given by the appellant on December 11, 2021, pursuant to which the police registered the First Information Report for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 504, 506, 302 and 120 (B), IPC, and for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the six persons, including respondent No.2. On February 2, 2022, respondent No.2 surrendered before the Trial Court. Chargesheet was filed on March 28, 2022. The Sessions Court convicted and sentenced respondent No.2. In the appeal proceedings before the High Court, respondent No.2 filed an application praying for suspension of sentence, which was allowed by the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.2 was ordered to be released on bail, suspending the sentence imposed on him.

The Supreme Court observed: "The High Court took the view that the role attributed to respondent No.2 in the incident was of instigation, therefore, the sentence could be suspended....5. There is no escape from the fact that respondent No.2 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC and is imposed with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with payment of fine. He is also convicted for the offence under the Arms Act. Respondent No.2 had undergone incarceration so far for three years. His appeal has been awaiting final outcome....5.2. The nature of role played by respondent No.2 was the aspect weighed with the High Court in suspending the sentence awarded to him, the High Court was further persuaded itself to justify the suspension of sentence of respondent No.2 on the ground inter alia that that the FIR was sent to the Magistrate’s court after a gap of three days and that the original copy of the inquest report was not produced. 5.3 At the outset, it may be observed that the High Court was in evident error in resting upon the said two counts. Delay of three days in sending the copy of the FIR to the court of the Magistrate and the non-production of original copy of the inquest report could be said to be illogical considerations applied by the High Court, insofar as those aspects do not have any bearing on the credence of the prosecution’s case which was otherwise established on evidence before the Trial Court. These considerations could not have guided the application of mind of the High Court. 5.4 The High Court was swayed away to observe that the role played by respondent No.2 in the incident was of instigation only. It may be true that respondent No.2 was instigator when the deceased Krishna Behari Upadhyay was shot at, however, it is revealed from the record and the evidence, which the High Court has also accepted and observed, that respondent No.2 also had with him a country-made pistol. 5.5 As stated above, respondent No.2 had pistol with him and he along with Rajesh Kumar and other accused persons had been shouting ‘kill him’ (Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay)." 

Justice Anjaria who authored the judgment observed:"Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal and release of appellant on bail. Conceptually, there is a distinction between bail and suspension of sentence." 

He relied on the decision in State of Haryana vs. Hasmat (2004) 6 SCC 175, wherein, the Supreme Court had emphasized that "the Appellate Court is expected to record proper reasons in writing for ordering suspension of execution of sentence or the order appealed, further observed that before suspension of sentence could be ordered, there has to be careful consideration of the relevant aspects. It was stated that order directing suspension of sentence and grant of bail should not be passed as matter of routine." 

Justice Anjaria observed: "It is also the settled principle that the Appellate Court should not reappreciate evidence at stage of Section 389, CrPC and try to pick some lacunae or loopholes here and there in the case of prosecution. The presumption of innocence of the accused which is a principle applied in criminal jurisprudence, holds good only until the accused is tried. Once the accused is convicted at the end of the trial, the presumption of innocence does not continue."

He relied on the decision in Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(2021) 20 SCC 818, the Supreme Court was considering the question of grant of bail during pendency of appeal at the instance of appellant who was convicted under Section, 302/149, 201 read with Section 120-B, IPC. It was observed inter alia that the High Court should be slow in granting bail to an accused convicted under Section 302/149, IPC and that once convicted, the presumption of innocence would vanish. ‘The High Court has not at all appreciated and considered the fact that the learned trial court on appreciation of evidence has convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120-BIPC. Once the accused have been convicted by the learned trial court, there shall not be any presumption of innocence thereafter. Therefore, the High Court shall be very slow in granting bail to the accused pending appeal who are convicted for the serious offences punishable under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120-B IPC.’ (Para 11).

Justice Anjaria referred to the decision in Omprakash Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary & Anr.(2023) 6 SCC 123, Supreme Court reiterated that the benefit of suspension of sentence can be granted only in exceptional cases more particularly so in cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC. It was further observed that the court should consider the relevant factors like nature of accusation made against the convict, the manner of commission of crime, the gravity of the offence, etc. Distinction was brought out between grant of relief of suspension of sentence in the cases where fixed term sentence is imposed versus the cases where the convicted person is sentenced to life imprisonment, by relying on its own decision in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai vs. State of Gujarat (1999) 4 SCC 421, ‘When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances. Of course, if there is any statutory restriction against suspension of sentence it is a different matter. Similarly, when the sentence is life imprisonment the consideration for suspension of sentence could be of a different approach.’ (Para 3)

Even in respect of cases where the sentence awarded is for a fixed term, Supreme Court in Chhotelal Yadav v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (1999) 4 SCC 421 observed that ‘there is a caveat that if there are exceptional circumstances, then the Court may decline to suspend the sentence even in cases where fixed term of sentence is imposed’. It was specifically observed that in respect of plea of suspension of sentence where the sentence is of life imprisonment, such relief has to informed by a gross and apparent error in the judgment of the Trial Court. ‘What could be those exceptional circumstances is not something exhaustive. It is for the Court concerned to look into those exceptional circumstances as may be pointed out by the State. However, the only consideration that should weigh with the appellate court while considering the plea for suspension of sentence of life imprisonment is that the convict should be in a position to point out something very palpable or a very gross error in the judgment of the Trial Court on the basis of which he is able to make good his case that on this ground alone, his appeal deserves to be allowed and he be acquitted.’ (Para 16)

Justice Anjaria underlined that "The dictum that the benefit of suspension of sentence, if at all to be granted in the cases involving conviction under Section 302, IPC, it has to be only in exception cases, is well settled in the catena of judgments. In Vijay Kumar vs. Narender & Ors.(2002) 9 SCC 366 it was observed that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302, IPC, the court should consider relevant factors like the nature of accusation made against the accused, the manner in which crime is alleged to have been committed and the seriousness of offence. The view was reiterated in Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal & Anr. (2005) 5 SCC 281, Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Marashtra8, Gomti v. Thakurdas & Ors.9."

Justice Anjaria observed:"7. Looking to the crime scenario in the instant case, the murder of father of complainant-Pundit Krishna Behari Upadhyay took place inside the temple. The appellant complainant (PW2) in terms deposed that respondent No.2 had pistol in his hand. When all the accused persons came, the father of the appellant got frightened, went inside the temple. Thereupon, as is stated, the accused persons, including respondent No.2, pushed the door of the temple and made a forced entry inside, catching hold of Pandit Krishna Behari Upadhyay. The victim fell down having received gun shot injury to be in a pool of blood. As per the evidence appreciated by the Trial court leading to conviction of respondent No.2 under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC, the firearm was used by Munna Singh whereas respondent No.2 with pistol in his hand was instigating. Munna Singh and respondent No.2 had firearms with them. Respondent No.2 had with him a country-made pistol. 8. It is also to be noted that two of the accused persons are absconding." 

Justice Anjaria observed: "9. In the light of the above highlighted principles applied to the facts of the present case and having regard to the relevant considerations such as nature of accusation, events in the crime and even the attribution of role of the appellant, it has to be held that the High Court should not have suspended the sentence, and releases respondent No.2. A clear error was committed by the High Court. The participation and role played by respondent No.2 in the entire commission of offence has to be viewed as grave and could not have been discounted for its seriousness to suspend his sentence imposed upon conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC. 9.1 It goes without saying that observations in this order are limited to the aspect of suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 and releasing him on bail, not to influence the course of merit of the trial. 10. For foregoing reasons and discussion, impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 28.08.2024 suspending the sentence of respondent No.2 is hereby set aside. Respondent No.2 Sheo Narayan Mahto to is directed to surrender within ten days. The police authorities shall ensure that respondent No.2 is sent behind the bars within the above time permitted for surrendering. 11. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."

P.S.:Subsequent to the order of the High Court dated August 28, 2024, the last order in the case was passed on May 8, 2025 by Justice Pancholi led bench in Re.: I.A. No.01 of 2025. The 3-page long order reads:"The appellant/applicant has filed the present interlocutory application with a request that the Registry be directed to send back the Trial Court Records of Sessions Trial Nos.45 of 2024 & 381 of 2024, arising out of Baghaila P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 to the Court of learned ADJ-19th Rohtas, Sasaram....3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has pointed out that one of the accused has been convicted by the Trial Court whose trial was separated and, therefore, the said accused has filed the criminal appeal before this Court. This Court called for the Trial Court from the concerned Trial Court and the record is with the Registry of this Court. However, trial of other co-accused, whose trial has been separated, is still pending before the Court and, therefore, the original record is required to be transmitted to the Trial Court. 4. In view of the aforesaid request made by the appellant/applicant, office is directed to keep photo copies of the entire record of Sessions Trial Nos.45 of 2024 and 381 of 2024, arising out of Baghaila P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 and thereafter transmit the original record to the learned ADJ-19th, Rohtas, Sasaram so that the trial of the other co-accused, which has been separated, can be proceeded further. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has shown willingness to pay the cost of the same. 5. In view of the aforesaid, Registry is directed to transmit the record of Sessions Trial Nos.45 of 2024 and 381 of 2024, arising out of Baghaila P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 to learned ADJ-19th, Rohtas, Sasaram forthwith by special messenger at the cost of the applicant (informant) of this interlocutory application. 6. Registry is also directed to keep photo copies of the entire record of Sessions Trial Nos.45 of 2024 and 381 of 2024, arising out of Baghaila P.S. Case No.96 of 2021 and thereafter transmit the original record to the learned ADJ-19th, Rohtas, Sasaram so that the proceedings in the present appeal may proceed further. 7. Accordingly, this interlocutory application, i.e., I.A. No.01 of 2025 stands disposed of."

Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh dismisses petition against Adani's project in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur by Bihar Pradesh Youth Congress

Justice Sudhir Singh is performing the duties of office of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court with effect from October 23, 2025. During October 2025-December 10, 2025, he has authored 20 judgements. In his first judgement as Acting Chief Justice in The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. vs. Abhay Kumar (2025), he had authored a 4-page long judgement dated October 30, 2025. 

In Nand Kumar Sagar vs.. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma delivered its judgement in case related to Adani Power Limited's project in Pirpainti, Bhgalpur. Justice Singh authored his twentieth judgement dated November 11, 2025, wherein he concluded:"3. After considering the materials on record and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respective parties, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the present writ application pertains to the policy decision of the State Government with regard to establishment and implementation of industrial or infrastructural projects, including matters relating to environmental clearances and land allocation involved in such project. Such decisions necessarily fall within the domain of the competent authorities of the State Government, who are empowered to take an appropriate policy decision in accordance with law and prescribed procedures. 4. In view thereof, we find no merit in the present writ application, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed." Nand Kumar Sagar, the petitioner is the co-chairman, Bihar Pradesh Youth Congress, Legal Cell and also a practitioner the High Court.

The petitioner had sought the following reliefs:“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 5 (MoEFCC, State Forest Department, and BSPCB) to forthwith ensure that no construction or preparatory activities, including land clearing or tree felling, are undertaken by the Project Proponent at the site in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, without obtaining the requisite and valid Environmental Clearance (EC) under the EIA Notification, 2006, Stage-I and Stage-II Forest Clearances under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and Consents to Establish (CTE) under the Air and Water Acts. b. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the allocation/lease of approximately 1,050 acres of land in Pirpainti, Bhagalpur, to the Project Proponent and quashing and setting aside any such allocation or lease order that has been passed without adhering to the due process of law, transparency, and public interest considerations. c. Issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition, restraining the Respondent authorities and the Project Proponent from undertaking any activity on the said land parcel that could lead to environmental degradation, deforestation, or harm to the Vikramshila Gangetic Dolphin Sanctuary and its environs, pending the final adjudication of this petition. d. Direct the Respondent No. 1 (MoEFCC) and Respondent No. 3 (State Forest Department) to conduct a thorough and independent inquiry into the allegations of violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the EIA Notification, 2006. e. Direct the Respondent No. 5 (BSPCB) to conduct an immediate inspection of the site and submit a report on the compliance status with environmental norms and consent requirements. f. Order the constitution of an Independent Expert Committee comprising ecologists, environmental scientists, foresters, and socio-economic experts to assess the environmental impact, ecological fragility, biodiversity status (including the Dolphin Sanctuary), socio-economic impact, and compliance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (RFCTLARR) Act, 2013, regarding the proposed project and land allocation. g. Pending the final outcome of this petition and the report of the Independent Expert Committee, grant an interim order of stay on all ongoing or proposed construction and land clearing activities by the Project Proponent at the Pirpainti site. h. Direct the Respondents to disclose all documents related to the land allocation, ToR, EIA/EMP, public hearing minutes, Forest Clearances, and Consents Establish/Operate, within a stipulated timeframe. i. Pass any such father order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and for the protection of the environment and the fundamental rights of the citizens. j. Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent authorities to ensure that all statutory compliances, including but not limited to the Environmental Impact Assessment process, Forest Clearances, and adherence to the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, are scrupulously followed before any further steps are taken regarding the proposed thermal power project, and to halt any ongoing activities that violate these mandates.

Earlier, in a press release dated September 13, 2025, Adani Power Ltd. (APL), India's largest private sector thermal power generator had issued from Ahmedabad said that it has signed a 25-year Power Supply Agreement (PSA) with Bihar State Power Generation Company Ltd. (BSPGCL) for supply of 2,400 MW of power from a greenfield ultra super critical plant to be set up at Pirpainti in Bhagalpur district of Bihar.  

In M/s Best Furniture Industry vs. The Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (BIADA) through its Chairman cum Managing Director & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long fourteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:" 4. We find no infirmity in the order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. The directions issued therein strike a fair balance between the rights of the petitioner and the administrative responsibilities of BIADA under the Exit Policy, 2023. The learned Single Judge rightly directed the petitioner to hand over possession after removing machinery, required BIADA to list the property as vacant, ensure valuation of structures in the petitioner’s presence, and release payment upon re-allotment and realization of allotment fees. These directions ensure procedural fairness, transparency, and protection of public revenue while safeguarding the petitioner’s entitlement. 5. The timeline fixed for completion of the process within twelve months is reasonable and aims to prevent undue delay. The condition imposed by learned Single judge regarding payment is practical and justified as BIADA cannot be expected to pay before realizing the amount. 6. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge is affirmed being equitable, reasonable and in conformity with the BIADA Exit Policy, 2023. No interference is called for. 7. The appeal stands dismissed." Justice Singh authored the judgement.

In Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Bhagat vs. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long fifteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:"3. From the records, it appears that the respondents have already addressed the grievance of the petitioner vide order dated 09.03.2018 (Annexure-P3). On an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the First Appellate Authority, by order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure-P4), has also taken action against the erring Circle Officer (Respondent No. 5) with respect to the grievance raised by the petitioner. 4. The Circle Officer is directed to pass a final order in Encroachment Case No. 05/2017-18, after following due process of law, at the earliest. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ petition stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement.

The petitioner had sought issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the concerned authorities to take immediate steps to protect, preserve and restore public land, specifically the land classified as "Girmajarua" and recorded in the Khatiyan as "Dev Sthan" (place of worship), which was illegally encroached upon by private respondents who constructed residential structures over it, thereby violating public rights and the sanctity of the land reserved for religious /community purposes. 

In Sunil Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Divisional Commissioner Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long sixteenth judgement dated November 3, 2025 wherein, it concluded:"4. From perusal of both the documents, it is apparent that the land in question is not a cremation ground. A specific statement has been made in report that no cremation activity is being carried out on the said land. The Khatiyan, placed at page 25 of the writ petition, also does not indicate the land being recorded as a cremation ground. Furthermore, the site in question has been approved by the Gram Sabha for construction of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar School, for which no objection has been made. 5. As such, we find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed." Justice Singh authored the judgement.

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ preferably in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing upon the concerned respondents not to construct building of Dr. Bhim Raw Ambedkar School in the land of crematorium situated in Mauza-Jagdishpur, Kudhani, Muzaffarpur appertaining to Thana No.255. Khata No. 273. Khesra No.327 which was being used as a funeral rites for several years by the local people. He had sought a direction to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to take appropriate legal action against Revenue Staff Anchal Amin and Anchal Adhikari who had submitted wrong report with respect to land in question and to direct the respondents to allow the public at large to use. 

In Om Prakash Gupta vs. The Union of India through the Railway Secretary & Ors. (2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 2-page long seventeenth judgement authored by Justice Singh on November 4, 2025, wherein it concluded:"4. Considering the nature of grievance raised by the petitioner and the representation, having been signed by more than 600 persons, the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 5 are directed to look into the matter, and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties, pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement.

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ or writs, direction or directions to the respondents for construction of Pakka Ladder to go up and to come down from the Railway over bridge by its north side located at Takiya village Railway gate which links old G.T. Road Sasaram to Buxer Road N.H. District-Rohtas(Bihar).” Notably, in respect to redressal of his grievance, the petitioner had made a representation to all the respondents, including General Manager, General Manager's Office, East Central Railway, Hajipur, the Respondent No. 3, which was still pending consideration. Respondent no. 5 was Divisional Rail, Manager, Divisional Office, East Central Railway, Pandit Din Dayal Upadhyaya, Chadnauli, (U.P).

In Indal Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary-Cum-Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Bihar & Ors.(2025), Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma of the Patna High Court delivered a 3-page long eighteenth judgement authored by Justice Singh on November 10, 2025, wherein, it concluded:"4. In respect of the allegations as levelled in the present writ application, it appears from the records that the respondents have already issued the show cause notices to all the concerned parties, as evident from page-59 onwards of the writ application. 5. Considering the fact that the matter has already been set in motion, it is expected that the respondent authorities shall take all necessary steps to conclude the proceedings and bring the matter to its logical end in the interest of justice. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application stands disposed of." Justice Singh authored the judgement. 

The petitioner had sought the following reliefs: I. The answering respondents, particularly respondent no.8 i.e. the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Dighwara, may kindly be directed to produce action taken report in view of inquiry report submitted vide letter no. 63 dated 30.06.2022, under the signature of the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of Accountant General (Accounts Exam), Bihar, Patna. II. The said authority also may kindly be directed to produce action taken report in view of memo no. 645 dated 26.06.2024, memo no. 520 dated 27.05.2024, memo no.521 dated 27.05.24. memo no. 516, 27.05.24. memo no. 644 dated 26.06.2024, memo no. 515 dated 27.05.2024 etc. at the earliest in the interest of justice. The sequel action also may kindly be directed to be taken against the erring officials/persons/employees in view of the development above said, as misuse of huge public money cannot be overlooked within the four corners of law. 

In Ankit Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Singh delivered his nineteenth judgement dated November 11, 2025, wherein he observed:"3. The petitioner had challenged the bid document dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Directorate of ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. From perusal of the bid document (Annexure-P/1), it appears that the last date for submission of the bid document was 16.09.2025 and the opening of the technical bid was fixed for 26.09.2025. 4. Considering the fact that the tender process of bid has virtually come to an end, the present writ petition has become infructuous. 5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous." Justice Singh authored the judgement.

The petitioner had prayed for quashing the impugned Notice Inviting e-Tender, NIT No. ICDS-01/25-26 dated 22.08.2025 issued by the Directorate of ICDS, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, for procurement of utensil sets for 1,15,009 Anganwadi Centers across all 38 districts of Bihar as it may dilutes utensil quality, deletes effective inspection, and permits testing in NABL/private institutions. He had sought direction to the Respondents to issue a fresh tender ensuring Procurement of 304 grade stainless steel utensils with ISI certification, Relaxation of turnover and experience norms for MSMEs, SHGs, and local industries, Inclusion of private sector experience in evaluation, Reintroduction of pre-dispatch inspection to maintain quality, Rational testing mechanisms without disproportionate fees and obligations, Level playing field by widening eligibility beyond OEMs/Resellers. 

Also read:Acting Chief Justice Sudhir Singh upholds Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh's verdict, dismisses "unsustainable order", LPA by Principal Secretary, Rural Department, Bihar 

Justice Sudhir Singh appointed Acting Chief Justice, Patna High Court awaits appointment of 19 judges

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Gopal Krishna

 

Patna High Court delivered 5 judgements on Dec. 20, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha restores 36 year old initial judgement of Trial Court, sets aside subsequent order, passed on High Court's order

Patna High Court delivered five judgements on December 20, 202 in Dasrath Paswan & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, Ashok Singh vs. State of Bihar, Brij Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, Binod Sah vs. State of Bihar and Mainuddin Mian vs. State of Bihar.

In Dasrath Paswan & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha of the High Court delivered a 37-page long judgement in a 41 year old P.S. case, wherein, he concluded:"38. The impugned judgment of conviction dated  19.02.2004 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Munger in Sessions Case No.58 of 1986 arising out of Barhiya P.S. Case No.161 of 1984, G.R. No.759 of 1984 is, hereby, set aside. 39. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Appellants are acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Since all above-named appellants/accused are on bail, they are discharged from their liabilities of bail bonds. Sureties stand discharged. 40. Fine, if any, paid be returned to the appellants/accused henceforth."

The appeal was preferred by the appellants-convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated February 19, 2004 and order of sentence dated February 20, 2004 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court III, Munger in a Sessions case of 1986 which arose out of Barhiya P.S. case of 1984, G.R. of 1984, whereby the trial court had convicted all the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants namely, Ram Sabad Paswan (since died), Rambhajju Paswan and Anuj Pawan @ Ramanuj Pawan (since died) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.3,000/- to each for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 

The appellant Ram Balak Paswan, Dasrath Paswan, Anuj @ Ramanuj Pawan (since died), Chunni Paswan and Bundi Ram were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 149 of the IPC, whereas all the appellants were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The case of prosecution, as per fardbeyan of informant namely, Ramprit Pawan (PW-4), recorded by Mr. Sohan Sah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakhisarai Police Station was that while informant was coming to his house after taking bath from the well of Thakurbari on October 8, 1984 at about 6.30 A.M., all the appellants-accused variously armed with lathi, bhala, gadasa and firearms were cutting the bamboos standing on the land which is situated towards east of the house of the informant. The informant Ramprit Pawan forbade them from cutting the same as proceeding under Section 145 of the CrPC was pending between the parties with regard to the land on which bamboo clumps were grown. On objection, the appellants-accused became infuriated and appellant Dasrath Pawan ordered his associates to kill the informant, on which, the appellant-accused Ram Sabad Paswan (since died) fired from his country-made pistol, which hit to the informant in his back and front. The appellant Rambhajju Paswan also fired by his
country-made pistol, which hit to his right hand and shoulder as a result of which, the informant became unconscious and fell down on the ground. After some time, when he regained himself in hospital and he came to know that the accused jointly assaulted his brother Akshay Lal Paswan with garasa and lathi. The informant and his brother came to hospital for medical treatment at 10 A.M. on the same day. On the basis of fardbeyan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Lakhisarai Police Station forwarded the fardbeyan to Barahiya Police Station for institution of a case. On the basis of fardbeyan, the Officer-in-charge, Barahiya Police Station lodged a case against the appellants-accused. 

After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants-accused. The Jurisdictional Magistrate on the basis of materials collected during investigation, took cognizance of the offence and after compliance of Section 207 of the CrPC, committed the case to the court of sessions for trial and disposal in view of Section 209 of CrPC. 7. The Trial Court on the basis of materials as collected during the course of investigation explained charges to the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which, they denied and pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed for trial. 8. To substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses. 

Justice Jha noted: "12. It is pertinent to mention that the learned trial court initially acquitted the appellants/accused but, the informant being aggrieved with aforesaid judgment, preferred Criminal Revision No.523 of 1989 before this Court and in exercise of power under Section 401(3) of the CrPC, the High Court has set aside the judgment and remanded back to the learned trial court for appreciation of evidences of PWs 2, 4 and 7 to its correct extent. After hearing both sides, the learned trial court has convicted above-named appellants/accused and sentenced them in the manner indicated above." 

It is evident, the High Court had set aside the acquittal of the appellants/accused after hearing a criminal revision petition filed in 1989 and remanded back to the trial court for appreciation of evidences of PWs 2, 4 and 7. In compliance of the High Court's order, the trial court re-heared the case and convicted the appellants who were acquitted earlier. The name of the judge who had set aside the judgment and remanded the case back to the trial court is not in public domain.

Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants/accused/convicts preferred to appeal in the High Court. 

Justice Jha observed: "31. It appears that the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC of accused/appellants has been recorded by learned trial court in very cryptic and mechanical manner and same is not acceptable under law in view of legal ratio as settled through Sukhjit Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2014) 10 SCC 270]". In Sukhjit Singh's case Supreme Court has held: “10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under Section 313 CrPC in entirety, we find that no incriminating material has been brought to the notice of the accused while putting questions. Mr Talwar has submitted that the requirement as engrafted under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. To buttress the aforesaid submission, he has drawn inspiration from the authority in Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6 SCC 595 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 92]. Relying upon the same, he would contend that when the incriminating materials have not been put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC it tantamounts to serious lapse on the part of the trial court making the conviction vitiated in law. 11. In this context, we may profitably refer to a four-Judge Bench decision in Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC 903 : AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 1491] wherein, Bose, J. explaining the significance of the faithful and fair compliance with Section 342 of the Code as it stood then, opined thus: (AIR pp. 445-46, para 30) “30. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the committal court and ask whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question. Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice.”

Justice Jha relied on the decision in Hate Singh Bhagat Singh vs. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC 1060: AIR 1953 SC 468 : 1953 Cri LJ 1933], wherein Justice Bose speaking for a three-Judge Bench highlighted the importance of recording of the statement of the accused under the Code expressed thus: (AIR pp. 469-70, para 8) “8. Now the statements of an accused person recorded under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Criminal Procedure Code are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial. It has to be remembered that in this country an accused person is not allowed to enter the box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the protection of the accused in some cases but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statements of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box.” 

Justice Jha underlined that this principle has been reiterated in Ajay Singh vs. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 371] in following terms: (SCC pp. 347-48, para 14)  “14. The word ‘generally’ in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of
the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give.”

Justice Jha pointed that "32. From perusal of record, it appears that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined during the trial. In this context, it would be apt to reproduce relevant paragraph of the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), which are as under:-.“38. First, statement of PW-3 under section 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded nearly 24 days after the incident. Since the Investigating Officer did not enter the witness box, the appellants did not have the occasion to cross-examine him and thereby elicit the reason for such delay. Consequently, the
delay in recording the statement of PW-3 in course of investigation, is not referred to and, therefore,
remains unjustified. The possibility of PW-3, being fixed up as an eye-witness later during the process
of investigation, cannot be totally ruled out”.

Justice Jha noted that though PW 4 was said to have reached the place of occurrence at 1.30 p.m. on 5-9-1985 and recovered a bullet in the blood oozing out from the injury at the hip of the dead body, no effort worthy of consideration appears to have been made to seize the weapons by which the murderous attack was launched. It is true that mere failure/neglect to effect seizure of the weapon(s) cannot be the sole reason for discarding the prosecution case but the same assumes importance on the face of the oral
testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses i.e. PW 2 and PW 3, not being found by this Court to be wholly reliable. The missing links could have been provided by the investigating officer who, again, did not enter the witness box. Whether or not non-examination of a witness has caused prejudice to the defence is essentially a question of fact and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. The reason why the investigating officer could not depose as a witness, as told by PW 4, is that he had been sent for training. It was not shown that the investigating officer under no circumstances could have left the course for recording of his deposition in the trial court. 

Justice Jha observed: "It is worthy of being noted that neither the trial court nor the High Court considered the issue of non-examination of the investigating officer. In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 not being wholly reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where examination of the investigating officer was vital since he could have adduced the expected evidence. His non-examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. 33. It appears that the witness examined during trial are interested and related witnesses." 

He drew on paragraph No. 32 and 33 of the legal report of Supreme Court as available through Nandlal vs. State of Chattisgarh (supra), which are as under:-“32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured witnesses. This Court, in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [1957 SCC OnLine SC 13], has observed thus: “11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely: (1) Wholly reliable. (2) Wholly unreliable. (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. 12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.”

Justice Jha referred to paragraph no. 4 and 5 of the legal report of Supreme Court as available through State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shamsher Singh (supra), which are as under:- “4. On an appeal preferred by the accused-respondent, the aforesaid conviction has been set aside and he has been acquitted for the offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 but has been convicted for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced with imprisonment already undergone. 5. The High Court in acquitting the accused-respondent held that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, the court was obliged to see if the act was done with the intention or knowledge so as to cause death and since the facts do not prove such intention or knowledge on part of the accused-respondent, there cannot be an offence for attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. It also observed that the intention has to be gathered from the entire circumstances of the case such as nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it was used, severity of the blow or hurt, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted and so on and not merely from the end result”.

Justice Jha record4ed: "35. Taking note of aforesaid available evidence as surfaced during trial, it is an admitted position that occurrence was free fight in nature, where both parties received injuries. The case of appellant for same set of occurrence lodged by appellant side prior to this case. Police upon investigation submitted final form against appellants. Injuries of appellants, which was also of gunshot could not explain by prosecutions. I.O. of this case could not examined during trial, which also appears fatal for prosecution. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 deposed to arrived after actual occurrence. Allegation of firing appears general and omnibus out of testimony of PW-4, whereas same was stated in specified manner in FIR. PW-4 deposed that only two accused persons were carrying country-made pistol, whereas he was silent about Anuj Paswan (since died). All such unanswered events creates a doubt qua occurrence, which creates a serious doubts, the benefit of which must be extended to accused/appellants. 36. In view of aforesaid testimony of witnesses, who are related to informant (PW-4) cannot be wholly reliable as they appears interested witnesses in view of Nandlal’s case (supra). 37. Statement of appellants/accused also appears recorded in very cryptic and mechanical manner in view of Section 313 of the CrPC....." 

The judgement  concluded that the present appeal against appellant Nos. 2, 4 and 5 stands abated. "Now, this appeal survives against above-named four appellants only."

Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on Dec. 23, Justice Alok Kumar Sinha sets aside unsustainable orders by District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar, State Appellate Tribunal, Bihar in 2016, 2017

Patna High Court delivered 13 judgements on December 23, 2025 in Chhathu Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Bajrang Pathak vs. The State of Bihar, Rishu Ranjan vs. The Examination controller of Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Exam Board, Madhwi Jha and Ors vs. The Patna University & Ors., Shailja Sinha vs. The Union of India, Kumari Bandana & Anr. vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., Chandan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Indu Kumari @ Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Pratima Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Madhwi Jha & Ors. vs. The Patna University & Ors., Uday Shankar Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar, Ishwar Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Bhola Mochi vs. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank & Ors.

In Kumari Bandana & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Alok Kumar Sinha of Patna High Court delivered a 14-page long judgement dated December 23, 2025 wherein, he concluded:"...the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 passed by District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar in Case no. 04/2013 and order dated 24.08.2017 passed by State Appellate Tribunal, Bihar in Appeal no. 83 of 2017 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 32. The respondents are directed to accept the joining of both the petitioners as per the order dated 09.10.2014 passed by the District Teacher Appellate Authority, Buxar, and pursuant to their appointments, the respondents are further directed to grant all consequential benefits to which the petitioners would be legally entitled to with effect from the date of issuance of their appointment letters. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of fifteen days from the date of passing of this judgment.

The writ application was filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 24.08.2017 passed in Appeal No. 83 of 2017 passed by the learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners have been rejected on baseless grounds which were never in issue without application of judicious mind. 

She had also prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Buxar in Case No. 4 of 2013 whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners have been rejected reviewing its final Order dated 09.10.2014 by which the Petitioners joining was directed to be accepted by the Respondents at the Schools in which they were appointed. She also issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to accept the joining of both the Petitioners as per the Orders passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Buxar dated October 9, 2014. The petitioner further prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to grant/accord the consequential benefits to the Petitioners for which they are legally entitled to from the date of issuance of their appointment letters by the Competent Authority and for issuance of the writ in the nature of declaration holding that the appointment of the Petitioners were legal and there was no flaw in the procedure and further hold that the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Buxar have no jurisdiction to review its own Order available in the law.

The petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers pursuant to the selection process conducted under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The appointments were made against sanctioned and vacant posts after due process of selection, counselling and verification, as would be evident from the appointment letters annexed with the writ petition. A dispute subsequently arose with regard to the legality of the alleged appointments. The matter was taken before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Buxar, which by order dated 09.10.2014 allowed the claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, the very same District Appellate Authority, by order dated 25.01.2016, reviewed and recalled its earlier order dated 09.10.2014, holding that the earlier order suffered from error. The petitioners assailed the order dated 25.01.2016 before the State Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bihar, which by order dated 24.08.2017 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the District Appellate Authority. The petitioners approached the High Court by filing the writ application. 

Patna High Court delivered 7 judgements on Dec. 24, Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad led Division Bench grants bail in a weak UAPA case

Patna High Court delivered 7 judgements on December 24, 2025 in Binod Mishra @ Vinod Kumar Mishra @ Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Mishra vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, Branch Office Patna, Khushbu Kumari vs. The Union of India, Bindeshwari Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Nawal Kishor Singh @ Naval Kishor Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Sikandar Ajam vs. The State of Bihar, Satya Narayan Das vs. The State of Bihar and Devendra Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar.

In Binod Mishra @ Vinod Kumar Mishra @ Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Mishra vs. The Union of India through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi, Branch Office Patna, High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 6-page long judgement, wherein it concluded:"....there is no material to connect the appellant with any Naxal activity, there is no material that any activity was being conducted from his house or that he was participating in the said activity of the Naxals, further considering that the appellant has remained in jail for one and half year, he has no criminal antecedent and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, we set aside the impugned judgment/order of the learned Special Judge, NIA and direct release of the appellant on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, NIA, Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02/2024 arising out of NIA, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC/26/2023/NIA/DLI, subject to the condition that during the trial, the appellant shall present himself on the dates fixed in the matter and, in case of two consecutive defaults in putting appearance, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the learned trial court. 13. This appeal is allowed. 14. The case diary and other materials are being returned to the NIA." 

Justice Prasad who authored the judgement observed:" In course of hearing, we called upon learned Special PP for the NIA to demonstrate from the case diary or from the deposition of the witnesses so far that there is any evidence to the effect that any meeting of the Naxals was held in the house of this appellant or this appellant was found present in any of the meetings. 10. Learned Special PP for the NIA could not demonstrate that material from the record. 11. This Court has gone through the disclosure statements of Pramod Mishra and Anil Kumar Yadav. Perusal of the disclosure statements would show that they had reached the house of the appellant all of a sudden, there is no material to show that they were
regularly staying in the house of the appellant or that any Naxal activity was being carried out from the said house. No arms or ammunition has been found either in the house or from the possession of the persons arrested therefrom."

The High Court heard the appeal which was preferred challenging the order dated May 29, 2024 by the  Special Judge, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 02/2024 arising out of NIA, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC/26/2023/NIA/DLI dated August 31, 2023 registered for the offences alleged under Sections 153A, 216A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant prayed for regular bail in connection with this case. He was in incarceration since March 21, 2024.

The prosecution case was based on the self-statement of one Gulshan Kumar, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tekari, Gaya registered on August 10, 2023. In his self-statement, the S.D.P.O. (informant) alleged that on August 9, 2023, he got a secret information from the Central Agency that the dreaded Naxal Pramod Mishra and Anil Yadav were staying in the house of this appellant in village Hurrahi under Tekari Police Station and they were trying to strengthen and expand the organization in the Magadh Area by conducting meetings. On the basis of this information, the informant proceeded to verify it and on August 10, 2023, the police force surrounded the house of the appellant, in course of raid, two persons were found who disclosed their names as (1) Pramod Mishra @ Sohan Da @ Banbari Jee @ Bibi Jee @ Baba aged about 71 years and (2) Anil Yadav @ Ankush @ Lavkush aged 29 years. It was alleged that the
associates of these persons having sensed arrival of police had fled away. On search, from the possession of the two Naxals, one blue-coloured bag was seized from which in a purse seven notes of Rs.500/- and four notes of Rs.100/- total Rs.3,900/-, four letters for strengthening 'Gharelu Nukse’, one book, namely, Dihgam Yog Sandesh, another book, namely, Dastak and four memory card readers and from the door, one Honda Shine Motorcycle were seized. Since no one was ready to become seizure list witness, therefore, the two Constables who were members of the raiding party became seizure list witnesses. Both the Naxals who were caught there, they made their disclosure statements.

The appellant's counsel submitted that so far as the appellant was concerned, during investigation, no material much less sufficient materials have been found against him to show that he was involved in any Naxal activities. There was no material that he was present in any of the meetings with said Pramod Mishra and Anil Yadav. The reason for presence of Pramod Mishra in the house of the appellant was that Pramod Mishra happens to be the co-brother (sadhu) of the appellant and from the disclosure statement of Pramod Mishra itself, it would appear that he had reached the house of the appellant all of a sudden during the night hours when the appellant and his wife were alone in the house. The NIA had not gathered any evidence to show that any meeting was ever held in the house of the appellant. 

आंकड़ों के गणितीय मॉडल व डिजिटल तकनीक के गठजोड़ से लोकतंत्र खतरे में

इस साल मार्क जुकरबर्ग और वर्तमान और पूर्व मेटा अधिकारियों ने 8 बिलियन डॉलर के शेयरधारक मुकदमे को निपटाने पर सहमति व्यक्त की, जिसमें आरोप लगाया गया कि कंपनी के निदेशक बार-बार फेसबुक उपयोगकर्ता गोपनीयता उल्लंघनों से उत्पन्न होने वाले अरबों डॉलर के जुर्माने और कानूनी लागत को रोकने में विफल रहे। कैम्ब्रिज एनालिटिका डेटा हार्वेस्टिंग घोटाले के मद्देनजर 2019 में अमेरिकी संघीय व्यापार आयोग ने फेसबुक पर 5 बिलियन डॉलर का जुर्माना लगाया. 

आंकड़ों की हवस के मायने

गार्जियन और न्यूयॉर्क टाइम्स के मार्च 17, 2019 के फेसबुक घोटाले के खुलासे के बाद अमेरिकी कंपनी फेसबुक के मालिक मार्क जुकरबर्ग को पिछले दो दिनों में 58,500 करोड़ रुपये के नुकसान, ब्रिटिश कंपनी स्ट्रेटेजिक कम्यूनिकेशन लेबोरेटरीज की इकाई कैंब्रिज एनालिटिका की मानवीय आकड़ों की हवस, कैंब्रिज यूनिवर्सिटी के मनोविज्ञान के प्राध्यापक एलेक्जेंडर कोगन की अनैतिकता की पराकाष्ठा और चुनावी लोकतंत्र में किसी भी हद तक जाकर सफलता पाने की लालसा में एक रिश्ता है.

सच यह नहीं कि जुकरबर्ग ठगा हुआ महसूस कर रहे हैं. सच तो यह है कि फेसबुक कंपनी हैरान होने का स्वांग कर रही है. डोनाल्ड ट्रंप को जिताने में कंपनी की मदद दुनियाभर में 16 मार्च से ही चर्चा में है.

कैंब्रिज एनालिटिका का दावा है कि वह फेसबुकवासियों का ऐसा ‘साइकोग्रफिक प्रोफाइल’ दे सकती है, जो मतदाता के व्यक्तित्व को उनके मित्रों से बेहतर आंक सकती है. कोगन ने इस कंपनी के लिए ‘दिस इज योर डिजिटल लाइफ’ (यह आपका डिजिटल जीवन है) नामक एप बनाया, जो मनोवैज्ञानिकों के लिए एक अनुसंधान उपकरण है. यह एप उपयोगकर्ता से फेसबुक एकाउंट के जरिये लाॅगइन करने के लिए कहता है और उपयोगकर्ता का फेसबुक प्रोफाइल, स्थान, मित्रों के आंकड़े आदि मांग लेता है. कोगन ने कहा है कि ‘कंपनी ने उन्हें आश्वस्त किया था कि उसके द्वारा एकत्रित आंकड़े कानून के तहत लिये गये हैं और वे करारनामे की शर्तों की सीमा के अंदर आते हैं.’ इसका कानूनी अध्ययन जरूरी है.

भारत सरकार ने भी फेसबुक को चेतावनी दे डाली है, मगर सरकार का फेसबुक से भविष्य में कैसा रिश्ता रहेगा, इसके बारे में अभी कुछ साफ नहीं है. अदालत में फेसबुक को भारतीय कानूनों के तहत काम करवाने के लिए मामले लंबित हैं, जिसमें यह चिंता जाहिर कि गयी है कि फेसबुक के जरिये 10 करोड़ भारतीयों की अहम जानकारी के लीक होने का खतरा है. सरकार को लिखित करार करना चाहिए कि जुकरबर्ग ये जानकारियां अमेरिकी सरकार को पेट्रियट एक्ट के तहत न दे. भारत से कमाई के बावजूद वह सरकार को सर्विस और इनकम टैक्स नहीं देता है.

चुनावी लोकतांत्रिक दुनिया में ऐसे आंकड़ों की मांग है, जो मतदाता के मन को येन-केन-प्रकारेण हर ले, किसी के प्रति भयभीत कर दे या या किसी के प्रति आशावादी बना दे. धन की परिभाषा में ‘देश के आंकड़े’, ‘निजी संवेदनशील सूचना’ और ‘डिजिटल सूचना’ शामिल है. भारत सरकार की बॉयोमेट्रिक्स समिति की रिपोर्ट ‘बॉयोमेट्रिक्स डिजाइन स्टैंडर्ड फॉर यूआईडी एप्लिकेशंस की अनुशंसा में कहा है कि ‘बॉयोमेट्रिक्स आंकड़े राष्ट्रीय संपत्ति हैं और उन्हें अपने मूल विशिष्ट लक्षण में संरक्षित रखना चाहिए.’ इलेक्ट्रॉनिक आंकड़े भी राष्ट्रीय संपत्ति हैं अन्यथा अमेरिका और उसके सहयोगी देश अंतरराष्ट्रीय व्यापार संगठन की वार्ता में मुफ्त में ऐसी सूचना पर अधिकार क्यों मांगते? कोई राष्ट्र या कंपनी या इन दोनों का कोई समूह अपनी राजनीतिक शक्ति का विस्तार ‘आंकड़े’ को अपने वश में करके अन्य राष्ट्रों पर नियंत्रण कर सकता है. एक देश या एक कंपनी किसी अन्य देश के संसाधनों को अपने हित में शोषण कर सकता है.

‘आंकड़ों के गणितीय मॉडल’ और डिजिटल तकनीक के गठजोड़ से गैरबराबरी और गरीबी बढ़ सकती है और लोकतंत्र खतरे में पड़ सकता है. 

‘संवेदनशील सूचना’ के साइबर बादल (कंप्यूटिंग क्लाउड) क्षेत्र में उपलब्ध होने से देशवासियों, देश की संप्रभुता व सुरक्षा पर खतरा बढ़ गया है. किसी भी डिजिटल पहल के द्वारा अपने भौगोलिक क्षेत्र के लोगों के ऊपर किसी दूसरे भौगोलिक क्षेत्र के तत्वों के द्वारा उपनिवेश स्थापित करने देना और यह कहना कि यह अच्छा काम है, देश हित में नहीं हो सकता है. उपनिवेशवाद के प्रवर्तकों की तरह ही साइबरवाद व डिजिटल इंडिया के पैरोकार खुद को मसीहा के तौर पर पेश कर रहे हैं और बराबरी, लोकतंत्र एवं मूलभूत अधिकार के जुमलों का मंत्रोचारण कर रहे हैं. ऐसा कर वे अपने मुनाफे के मूल मकसद को छुपा रहे हैं. वेब आधारित डिजिटल उपनिवेशवाद कोरी कल्पना नहीं है. यह उसका नया संस्करण है.

भारत के उपनिवेश बनने में सूचना-संचार माध्यम के योगदान पर आम तौर पर निगाह नहीं जाती. काफी समय से साम्राज्यों का अध्ययन उनके सूचना-संचार का अध्ययन के रूप में प्रकट हुआ है. अब तो यह निष्कर्ष सामने आ गया है कि संचार का माध्यम ही साम्राज्य था. सूचना के अर्जन, प्रस्तुतीकरण, वर्गीकरण, प्रसुचीकरण और एकत्रीकरण और एकत्रित सूचना को पढ़ने और उसके आधार पर लिखने के अधिकार से ही साम्राज्य का निर्माण होता रहा है. ऐसे में भारत सरकार द्वारा बहुराष्ट्रीय डिजिटल कंपनियों के माध्यम को अपने संचार के लिए प्रयोग करने और ‘निजी संवेदनशील सूचना’ आधारित बाॅयोमेट्रिक यूआईडी/आधार संख्या योजना के खिलाफ लंबित मामलों की सुनवाई देश और देशवासियों के लिए अति महत्वपूर्ण है. एक सोचे-समझे ब्लू प्रिंट के हिसाब से ब्रिटेन, अमेरिका और उनके सहयोगी देशों की आंकड़ा खनन कंपनियां लोकतंत्र को अनजाने-असाध्य रोग के जंजाल में कैद करती जा रही हैं.

इन खुलासों से यह स्पष्ट हो गया है कि आंकड़ों वाली कंपनियों और उनके विशेषज्ञों में और अपराध जगत के माफिया तंत्र के बीच मीडिया में परिष्कृत प्रस्तुतिकरण का ही फर्क है. चुनावी भ्रष्टाचार और निजी संवेदनशील सूचना की नींव पर गढ़े गये मनोवैज्ञानिक ग्राफ में कोई अंतर नहीं है. इस पर नकेल कसने के लिए कानून बनाने में देर हो चुकी है.

डॉ गोपाल कृष्ण