The has mandated the immediate completion of long-pending and related to the failure of multiple bridge structures across the state. In a decisive ruling, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad addressed a that highlighted a pattern of structural collapses and alleged financial irregularities spanning over a decade. While the Court declined to intervene in the administrative posting of the incumbent In-Charge Engineer-in-Chief, it emphasized that the failure to conclude investigations into incidents dating back to violates the constitutional right to a .
The Court’s order directs the Superintendents of Police in the districts of Dhanbad, Palamau, and Gumla to finalize investigations into FIRs registered between and . These authorities have been given a three-month deadline to submit final reports under . Simultaneously, the Secretary of the is tasked with overseeing and concluding all outstanding against officials implicated in these structural failures within the same timeframe.
The litigation, initiated by petitioner Pankaj Kumar Yadav, raised concerns regarding the collapse of several bridges, including those over the Barakar, Tajna, Koyal, and South Koyal rivers. The petitioner contended that these collapses, which cost the state exchequer millions, were the result of systemic corruption and negligence during the tenure of various officials, specifically pointing to the actions of Birendra Ram, the current In-Charge Engineer-in-Chief of the . Furthermore, the petition sought an investigation into the recovery of approximately ₹2.45 crore in cash from the residence of the engineer’s relative.
During the proceedings, the state government informed the Court that several investigative measures had already been undertaken. The administration reported that FIRs had been lodged against erring contractors and engineers, many of whom had been blacklisted or placed under suspension. Furthermore, the Court noted that technical evaluations, including those conducted by the , had assessed the structural integrity of the sites. Regarding the corruption allegations, the has already filed a under the , and the matter is currently before a .
The Bench observed that the petitioner’s request for a court-monitored investigation into the structural collapses was largely satisfied by the existence of ongoing legal actions and the fact that several bridges had already been repaired or replaced. However, the Court expressed deep concern over the inertia of the investigative agencies. As the Bench noted in its judgment: “Leaving pending for over a decade serves neither the administration of justice nor the parties’ rights and severely erodes the State’s remedial actions.”
The Court underscored that the right to a speedy investigation is a fundamental component of the right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed under . The Bench reiterated that constitutional guarantees do not remain dormant during the pre-trial phase and must be upheld to prevent prejudice stemming from unexcused and avoidable delays. “Such unreasonable and inordinate delays, firstly, seriously impair the administration of the criminal justice system because very often the perpetrators of serious crimes escape; and secondly, such delays impinge upon the ,” the Court recorded.
In its rejection of the plea to transfer the investigation to an outside agency, the Court relied on established legal precedents, noting that constitutional courts should only exercise such power in exceptional circumstances where bias or systemic failure is clearly demonstrated. The judges observed that the petitioner failed to prove that the existing departmental inquiries were superficial or that the state investigative machinery was intentionally shielding higher-ranking officials. The judgment highlighted that in a public interest petition, the Court cannot sit in appeal over technical findings or administrative decisions made years prior that have already attained a degree of finality.
Regarding the prayer to remove the Engineer-in-Chief from his current position, the Bench held that such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the State as an employer. The Court maintained that it lacks the authority to interfere with the administrative deployment of public servants unless a specific statutory rule or legal provision is shown to have been violated. Without such evidence, the Court declined to assume a supervisory role over the executive’s internal HR decisions.
To ensure strict compliance with its directives, the Court has mandated that the relevant district authorities and the file formal upon the expiration of the three-month period. Should any inquiry or investigation remain incomplete, the affidavits must detail the precise reasons for the delay, rendering the responsible officers personally accountable for any further lapses.
The order also requires the handling the Prevention of Money Laundering Act proceedings against the accused officials to prioritize the completion of the trial. A certified copy of the judgment has been ordered to be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand, the Secretary of the , the concerned Superintendents of Police, and the presiding Special Judge. By establishing these clear timelines, the Court aims to restore public confidence in the state’s investigative and administrative processes, ensuring that the legacy of the bridge collapse cases is addressed with the finality required by law. The proceedings stand disposed of, with the Court expressing hope that these directives will bring a prompt and logical conclusion to the long-pending matters.
infrastructure integrity - administrative accountability
