Procedural Lapses Lead to Quashing of Complaint Against Bihar CM

In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of public conduct and criminal procedure, the Patna High Court has quashed a complaint case filed against the Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar. The court emphasized that the lower judiciary failed to adhere to the mandatory procedural safeguards stipulated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS ), 2023 , particularly regarding the treatment of public servants and the examination of complainants.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The legal challenge began in March 2025, when a private complainant approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Begusarai, alleging that during the inauguration of the ‘World Cup Sepak Takra’, the Chief Minister was seen talking to a person next to him and displaying a “smiling face” while the National Anthem was being played. The complainant asserted that this conduct constituted an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honour Act, 1971 .

The magistrate had originally processed the complaint without examining the complainant on oath, issuing a notice to the Chief Minister as a “proposed accused.” The Chief Minister’s legal team, led by Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi, immediately moved for the quashing of these proceedings.

Arguments on Either Side

The petitioner argued that the complaint was politically motivated, timed strategically ahead of upcoming state assembly elections to tarnish his reputation. Counsel for the petitioner highlighted that the Chief Minister’s presence at the event was an official duty, and as such, the procedural protections afforded to public servants under Section 218 and 223 of the BNSS were applicable. They maintained that his conduct—standing in a ‘Pranaam’ posture while smiling—did not remotely constitute an insult to the National Anthem.

Conversely, the complainant argued that the inauguration of a sports event did not qualify as an "official duty" of the Chief Minister, asserting that the magistrate was within their rights to initiate the process.

Legal Analysis and Judicial Reasoning

The High Court’s analysis focused on the "procedural drill" mandated by the BNSS . Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha noted that the magistrate acted in a "hurried manner" by failing to conduct the mandatory examination of the complainant on oath as required by Section 223 . The Court clarified that while a magistrate possesses judicial discretion, the failure to follow the statutory prerequisites for taking cognizance against a public servant essentially renders the process void.

Referencing the Supreme Court’s precedent in G.C. Manjunath & Others Vs. Seetaram , the Court established that there is a clear nexus between the Chief Minister attending an inaugural event and his official public functions. The Court held that protecting a public servant from "unjustified criminal prosecution" while acting in their official capacity is a cornerstone of the legal framework.

Key Observations

Highlighting the flawed approach of the trial court, Justice Chandra Shekhar Jha made several critical observations:

• "The duty hours of a Chief Minister or, for that purpose, any minister of the government cannot be limited to their official work time only... his presence at the inaugural event... cannot be distinguished by saying that his participation was not in capacity of a public servant."
• "The Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses... if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint."
• "Merely folding hand in ‘Pranaam Mudra’ in standing position and ‘smiling face’ cannot be construed by any prudent imagination that it was the insult of the National Anthem."
• "The entire complaint, along with notice... issued to 'proposed accused'... appears contrary to established principles of law, by ignoring legal provisions as available under sections 223 & 226 of the B.N.S.S."

The Verdict and Its Impact

Observing that the complaint was "baseless and frivolous," the Court set aside the entire complaint case and all consequential proceedings. This judgment serves as a vital reminder to the subordinate judiciary that the initiation of criminal proceedings against public figures must be handled with strict adherence to mandatory procedural checks. It acts as a safeguard against the misuse of criminal complaints for political gain, reinforcing the principle that officials must be protected when performing their duties unless a legally sound, procedural path is followed.

By quashing the order, the Court has reinforced the protective shell granted by the BNSS , ensuring that public servants are not forced to endure the "stigma of prosecution" based on politically motivated, procedurally deficient complaints.