Begusarai judge objects to sudden transfer of case, says 'judiciary becoming laughing stock'

The transfer, the judge wrote, undermines the “principle of judicial independence”, leaving subordinate judges looking like “paper tigers”.

An Additional District and Sessions Judge in Begusarai has taken strong exception to a move by the Principal District and Sessions Judge (PDJ) to pull an execution matter out of his court, a case he described as being at a “concluding stage”, reported The Indian Express.

In a detailed order issued on November 17, the report said, Judge Brajesh Kumar Singh (ADJ-III) remarked that his “morale is badly dampened” and warned that actions of this kind risk turning “the judiciary a matter of laughing stocks”.

The case in question stems from an execution proceeding filed in 2024 by Manish Kumar of Handalpur. It concerns compensation ordered earlier for the death of Kumar’s guardian, who had died in a road accident involving a police vehicle.

Enforcement of that award was sought against the State of Bihar through the District Magistrate (DM) and others.

According to the report, judge Singh recorded that on October 14, 2025, his court had recommended to initiate contempt against both the DM and the Superintendent of Police (SP), after noticing that the DM did not submit any reply despite repeated opportunities.

Although the SP filed a response, he stated in paragraph 8 that he would reserve the right to submit detailed show-cause before the Hon’ble High Court, Patna.

This, the judge observed, suggested the two officers were “willing to file their respective show-causes in the Hon’ble High Court, Patna directly”.

He directed the officer in charge to send relevant extracts to the Registrar General of the High Court “with the recommendation to initiate contempt against the SP and DM”.

Just after these directions, an order dated November 15 from the PDJ reached his court, recalling the entire execution matter to the PDJ’s “personal file”. Judge Singh said he was ready to comply and instructed that the full records be handed over.

But he pointed out that the recall came “without any application at the behest of either party or without report of the court”, adding that the PDJ appeared to have acted “without even looking at the records”, the report said.

Referring to Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the PDJ acted, he noted that the provision is “conspicuously silent about transfer on the ground of so-called ‘administration’”.

Although the law permits action “of its own motion”, the judge pointed out that this cannot be equated with “the pleasure of Principal District and Sessions Judge”. He said that the PDJ “has no absolute power to transfer the case when the transferor court is at the stage of concluding the proceedings”.

The transfer, he wrote, undermines the “principle of judicial independence”, leaving subordinate judges looking like “paper tigers”.

He questioned why “poor” litigants should face strict coercive orders while “mighty bureaucrats are made absolutely immune from judicial process in the lower judiciary”. In his view, the move “was made to shield the DM and SP from contempt proceeding”.

He also recalled earlier instances of interference, already “duly recorded” in his order of September 23. However, complying with the new direction, he said: “I am withdrawing from this case as mandated... but I have no regrets.”