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.

The Patna High Court quashed a complaint against Bihar CM Nitish Kumar, which alleged he insulted the National Anthem by standing in 'Pranam Mudra' with a smiling face during the Sepak Takraw World Cup event.

The Court found no violation of Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, as his gesture reflected respect, not insult.

The complaint, deemed politically motivated, was also dismissed due to procedural lapses under Sections 218 and 223 of the BNSS.

The Magistrate’s order issuing notice without examining the complainant on oath was declared misconceived. The entire complaint was thus set aside. (Nitish Kumar v State of Bihar and Anr)

Retired Patna High Court Justice Rakesh Kumar filed a complaint on November 8, 2023, alleging that former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud “showed hyperactivity” in listing a bail plea for Teesta Setalvad during court vacation, constituting possible misuse of power.

He contended Chandrachud constituted a special bench twice in one day on July 1, 2023, during the Supreme Court vacation, to grant bail after disagreement among initial judges.

The President of India has ordered an inquiry, forwarding the matter to the Ministry of Law and the Department of Personnel and Training under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for a possible CBI inquiry. 

The investigation raises constitutional questions on accountability for a former CJI.

Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a juvenile under the Arms Act, citing the reformative intent of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the recovery of arms from the petitioner, who was nearly 17 at the time of arrest.

The Court flagged key lapses in how the weapons were sealed and identified.

The court also criticised the lower courts for ignoring the Social Investigation Report, which highlighted the juvenile's clean record and a bright student. Juveniles should be reformed and not punished.

The Patna High Court has held that isolated lapses or moral failings by a wife do not automatically disqualify her from claiming maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

The Court made this observation while dismissing a husband's claim that his wife was in an illicit relationship and that their daughter was not his biological child.

It clarified the distinction between “acts of adultery” and “living in adultery,” where only the latter disqualifies a woman from maintenance. 

Referring to Section 112 of the Evidence Act, the court held the child legitimate. The maintenance was granted to the wife and the child, and the petition was dismissed. 

The Patna High Court upheld the Family Court's decision rejecting the husband's divorce plea under Sections 13(1)(ia) (cruelty) and (ib) (desertion) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Court said that just having schizophrenia isn’t enough reason for divorce unless it’s clearly shown that the condition is so serious that living together is not possible.

The appellant failed to provide medical or documentary evidence of his wife's alleged mental disorder or leg disability. The Court stressed that making unclear or unsupported accusations is not enough to get a divorce.

Finding the husband at fault for desertion, the appeal was dismissed and the Family Court’s judgment was affirmed.