The Patna High Court has directed the Congress party to immediately take down an AI-generated video featuring Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his late mother, Heeraben Modi, from all social media platforms. 

The 36-second video, posted by the Bihar Congress on September 10, shows Modi dreaming of his mother, who appears to criticise his politics in poll-bound Bihar.

The court finds the content potentially offensive and issues the removal order in response to a PIL by Vivekanand Singh, who said it dishonours the dignity of the PM’s mother. 

Besides Congress, notices have been issued to Rahul Gandhi, the Election Commission, and social media intermediaries including Meta, Google, and X (Twitter), to respond to the matter.

The Patna High Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman can seek maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if her husband fails to make 'reasonable and fair provisions' for her future during the iddat period.

The decision came in a case where the wife had alleged cruelty after the marriage, which forced her to return to her parents. She did not have a source of income and therefore claimed Rs. 15000 per month as maintenance. 

The husband argued that the marriage had ended mutually (mubarat), and he owed her nothing after paying 1,00,000 alimony, den mohar and iddat expenses.

Both the Family Court and High Court rejected this claim, affirming her entitlement to maintenance.

[Md Murshid Alam v. State of Bihar and Ors]

The Patna High Court set aside the conviction of Manoj Murmu under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, ruling that a mere breathalyser test without blood or urine analysis cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused had been sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment under Section 37 of the Act.

Justice Alok Kumar Pandey flagged major lapses in the investigation, including the informant doubling as the investigating officer, lack of proper training to use the device, no identification marks on the machine, and contradictory witness statements.

The Court acquitted Murmu, citing the denial of a fair investigation

[Manoj Murmu v The State of Bihar]

The Patna High Court upheld a Family Court order directing fruit seller Md. Saddam Hussain to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month as maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri rejected the husband’s claim of earning only ₹3,000 monthly, noting his actual earning capacity is higher.

The Court stressed that maintenance depends on the husband’s capacity to earn, not actual income.

The Court observed that ₹7,000 is a meagre amount given today’s living costs, where even basic meals exceed ₹3,000 monthly. It also dismissed the husband’s plea, affirming his obligation to pay maintenance for the wife’s necessities.

The Patna High Court granted bail to a 17-year-old accused of sexually assaulting a minor, ruling that Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, applies equally to all juveniles, including those above 16 accused of heinous offences.

It held that bail is the rule unless release risks criminal association, danger, or defeats justice.

The court found the Children’s Court had ignored the Social Investigation Report, which described the boy as an obedient student with no criminal links, suggesting false implication over land disputes.

Prolonged detention was harming his studies and rehabilitation. Bail was allowed on a ₹10,000 bond with conditions.

[X v. The State of Bihar & Ors]

The Patna High Court, while hearing a contempt plea on the constitution of a permanent committee for Shri Baba Kusheshwar Nath Temple, questioned why Bihar temples lack the cleanliness and greenery seen in South Indian temples.

The Court directed the Bihar State Religious Trust Board to include hygiene, transparency, and accountability norms in temple management.

Key orders include fixed donation boxes, sealed locks, quarterly bank statements, a paginated register of minutes, and clean surroundings.

The Board must issue a corrigendum to the temple committee and file an affidavit detailing compliance by August 8.

The Patna High Court ruled that a plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction. The Court directed the Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, to inquire into the age of an appellant convicted in a 1993 attempt to murder case.

The appellant submitted a matriculation certificate showing he was 17 years, 11 months, and 15 days old at the time of the offence.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, applies retrospectively to pending cases, emphasizing its rehabilitative purpose. 

The inquiry will determine if the appellant was a juvenile during the offence.

[Shiv Jee Singh & Ors v. State of Bihar]

The Central government has approved the appointment of Advocate Ajit Kumar as a judge of the Patna High Court.

The Law Ministry issued a notification confirming the appointment under Article 217(1) of the Constitution. His name was earlier recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium on July 3.

As of August 1, the Patna High Court is functioning with 36 judges against its sanctioned strength of 53, leaving 17 vacancies.

The Patna High Court set aside a single-judge order that removed Sessions Judge Kumar Gunjan for lacking basic knowledge of criminal law and ordered that he be removed from criminal work and sent for retraining. 

A Division Bench led by Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that the single-judge acted without hearing the judge, violating natural justice and overstepping revisional powers.

The Court said such directions, which affect service and reputation, fall solely under the Chief Justice’s administrative authority.

The Bench expunged all adverse remarks, noting that while the judge’s handling of the case may have been flawed, disciplinary action can’t be imposed without due process.

Justice Vipul M Pancholi was sworn in as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on Monday.

The oath was administered by Bihar Governor Arif Mohammed Khan at Raj Bhavan. Born in Ahmedabad in 1968, Justice Pancholi holds degrees in Electronics and Law from Gujarat University.

He began practising in 1991 and served as Assistant Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Gujarat High Court. Appointed as a judge in 2014 and confirmed in 2016, he brings over three decades of experience in diverse areas of law to his new role.

The Patna High Court observed that not appointing counsellors or referring parties to conciliation violates the mandate of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Rules framed thereunder.   

The Court emphasised that conciliation is a vital component of family dispute resolution, aiming to preserve relationships and avoid adversarial litigation.

The court noted that the state government had failed to appoint counsellors despite repeated directions. The Court stressed that the Family Court must actively promote reconciliation before proceeding with litigation.

The court also directed authorities to ensure proper implementation of the Act and the establishment of necessary counselling infrastructure to uphold its objectives.

The Patna High Court held that a woman in a long-term, customary relationship with cohabitation, social acceptance, and children is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. 

The petitioner, a pardanashin woman, claimed she married her deceased husband’s younger brother in 2010 as per levirate custom prevalent in their community, and had two sons from the union. 

She alleged that he, being a constable in Bihar Police, abandoned her and the children six years ago and has since failed to provide any maintenance.

Husband sought dismissal of the petition on the ground of prohibited degrees of relationship. The Court said strict proof of marriage isn't needed under Section 125 and remanded the case for fresh consideration.

The Patna High Court clarified the interpretation of "living in adultery" under Section 125(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which disqualifies a woman from receiving maintenance.

The Court held that occasional sexual encounters outside marriage do not amount to "living in adultery." The woman must be in a continuous or stable adulterous relationship for this disqualification to apply.

This observation came while rejecting a husband's plea to deny maintenance to his wife based on alleged one-time incidents.

The Court stressed that Section 125 is a welfare provision and must be interpreted liberally to protect dependent women.

The Patna High Court directed the Bihar government to take immediate steps against the allegations that minor girls are being trafficked and exploited under the guise of performing in orchestra, dance, and theatre groups in Bihar. 

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy was hearing a PIL by NGO Just Rights For Children Alliance, seeking regulation and monitoring of such groups.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Singh argued that the inaction violates child protection laws under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. The court issued notice to the state and listed the matter for further hearing on July 25, 2025.