Click the Play button to listen to article

In an unprecedented order, a Bihar Court has passed a series of remarks calling out the apathy shown by the IAS & IPS level officers to the orders of the subordinate Courts. The judge has passed an order asking the Ministry of Personnel and Training about the need to overhaul the training system for IAS & IPS to make the officers attuned to the democratic set-up.

The observation was made by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram, while convicting Rohtas Superintendent of Police Raushan Kumar under Section 384 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (corresponding to Section 345 CrPC) for wilfully disobeying court directions. The court imposed a nominal fine of Re. 1 on the SP. Rohtas.

 Additionally, a notional fine of Rs. 1 has also been imposed on the District Magistrate for defending an "apparent dishonest officer".

Further, the judge has directed the Director General of Police, Patna, to get the observations against the former SP entered into the service records and that the copy of the order should be shared with the Chief Minister of Bihar, Chief Secretary of Bihar, SSP, Saran and the Ministry of Personnel and Training.

Court Says Officers Must Not Treat Subordinate Courts As Inferior

The court said its discussion revealed "serious flaws" in the training of IPS officers, observing that officers should be imparted training to respect and comply with court orders and should not treat subordinate courts as inferior.

"This, in short, shows serious over-hauling of training system of IAS & IPS officer. Hence, office clerk is directed to send a copy of this order to Ministry of Personnel, and Training of the Central Government so that training system of 'Steel frame' could be attuned to our democratic set-up," Sessions Judge Anil Kumar observed.

Background

To put it briefly, the Trial Court's remarks come from a case concerning the conviction of 10 persons for the offence of kidnapping.

During the hearing, the judge sought the fresh criminal antecedents of the accused as the judge came to know that the accused operated a gang of kidnappers. However, despite the urgency shown by the Trial Court, the SP delayed the report by one month and merely copied from previous diary entries without providing criminal antecedents.

The case got further serious when, during the trial, it came to light that the victim was involved in the business of selling cannabis and had won Rs. 1 crore from gambling, which was cited as a reason for kidnapping. In the judgment dated August 28, 2025, convicting the accused persons, the Trial Court asked the then SP to investigate the victim and take action against them. It further directed to register an FIR against the victim for perjury because it has come to its knowledge that although he was kidnapped for ransom of Rs. 1.50 crore, he turned hostile after taking the bride for Rs. 20 lakh. A copy of the judgment was shared with the former SP and the Director General of Police, Bihar. 

A year later, the Additional Public Prosecutor informed that the victim is roaming freely as an FIR hasn't been registered against him.

Subsequently, the Trial Court issued a show-cause notice to the police officer to reply within 3 days. Even then, the police officer failed to respond. Lamenting his continuous apathy and indifference towards the Court, the judge recommended disciplinary action against him to the DGP, Bihar, and the Chief Secretary of Bihar on July 16. They were asked to respond within 15 days.

Both officers failed to respond, and the Trial Court was forced to initiate contempt proceedings against the former SP:

"Till date, neither D.G.P. nor Chief Secretary sent even a single chit of paper! This shows the apathy, indifference and respect of the Bihar Administration for the District Court! As when the court found the whole administration un-responsive, it was compelled to launch a proceeding U/s 384 BNSS (old S. 345 Cr.P.C.) for wilfully disobeying the court orders, lowering the dignity of the court and flouting the majesty of law and thus the Criminal Misc. Petition No. 82/2026 was registered on 17.08.2026."

The case didn't end here. After the contempt proceedings were initiated and notice was issued to the police officer, the Court noted that the District Magistrate, Rohtas, appointed, on his request, Additional Public Prosecutor Anil Kumar Singh to represent the delinquent SP. Later, this appointment was withdrawn, and a private lawyer appeared for the SP.

The lawyer pleaded ignorance, saying the police officer didn't receive a copy of the judgment and that the APP also didn't inform him about the judgment where he was show-caused to appear before the Court.

Noting that the SP can't shift the burden to the APP when he himself failed to appear before the Court, the Trial Court judge noted:

"For his evidence, on his request four (04) dates were given i.e. on 28.08.2026, 07.09.2026, 11.09.2026, 14.09.2026 and 22.09.2026 but he did not appear for his evidence. Rather, he used such time to pressurize the court to drop the proceeding through approaching eminent person. In this sequence, he even approached the then Hon'ble Inspecting Judge, who being overwhelmed, called myself to appear before him in Patna with records of S. Tr. No. 95/2023 and this Criminal Misc. Case through E-mail dated 24.09.2026 but it was humbly refused to submit before such extra-legal diktat. As the O.P. did not produce any evidence, the whole case of the court that the O.Р. wilfully and deliberately did not comply the order/ direction of the court stands / proved."

The Trial Judge noted that while its unsual for it to make comments on the conduct of police officers and recommend action against him, the present case is a case of "apparent" dishonest officers.

"It is not unusual that the courts while deciding the matter, make comments on the conduct of police officer and recommend action against him. This is called Judicial control over administration. In fact, the District Courts through such observation / recommendation assist the head of the police in the District i.e. Superintendent of Police to discharge better his duty of Superintendence. But, unfortunately, the O.P. sided with 'apparent' dishonest officer and refused to shield his upright officer."

The judge noted that the conduct of the police officer in the past has also not inspired confidence. It recalled that in one such hearing where one IO claimed that he was being abused by a local goon and also submitted an audio recording, the Court had directed him to take action. However, no information was received, and rather the Court got to know that the officer was rebuked for informing the Court.

In another case, the Court had once directed the SP to take action against an SHO who had made a case of simple road rage into a heinous offence of robbery. However, the Court got to know that no action was taken and rather the SHO was promoted and shifted to a big police station. Several other precedents have been mentioned by the Trial Judge.

Continous apathy of high ranking officers towards district courts

"Such an instance has been quoted here only for illustrative purpose to show his callous and indifferent attitude towards the court and also raises serious doubt over his integrity. Above-discussion shows serious flaws in the training of such I.P.S. officer where they should have been imparted training to respect and comply the court orders but they treat the subordinate court as the inferior one, the judge noted.

The judge went on to make further observations on how the Trial Courts do not have good experience with IAS officers, especially District Magistrates.

It noted that in the Periyamal case, the Supreme Court directed that execution cases must be disposed of within 6 months. The judge noted that even in this Court, such petitions have been ns pending since 2010 and orders were passed; however, no reply was received. 

"Even this court has no good experience with IAS officer especially District Magistrate. In Periyamal Case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that execution cases must be disposed of within six months. This court has execution matters pending since 2010. Orders were passed but no action. Show-cause issued. No reply! Cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed. No response even then, what option left other than attaching the property of the collectoriate. Admittedly, it is unfortunate!

This problem is not confined to Bihar only. In an execution matter U/s 174 M.V. Act, Namakkal (Tamilnadu) D.M. was sent several order including show-causes but he did not reply even once. Then, the petitioner was asked to withdraw it and approach Hon'ble Madras High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He did the same. Unconditional apology of D.M., Namakkal sent to this court."


Tags: