Bihar courts stagger under burden of liquor cases that keep on piling
PATNA: In “dry” Bihar, unabated addition of excise cases (related to liquor) due to continued availability and frequent recoveries and arrests, including for alleged hooch tragedies, is adding to the growing pendency in the already overburdened courts.
Sale and consumption of liquor was banned in Bihar in April 2016.
As per figures of the Patna High Court, excise cases account for around 19% of the total civil and criminal cases instituted over the last three and a half years since 2018.
During the pandemic year 2020, when the courts had restricted functioning and fewer cases were admitted, the share of excise cases in the total number of cases rose to 21.75%. Overall, pendency has also risen due to pandemic disruptions, shows the HC data.
The impact on the subordinate courts is more, with the share of excise cases in the total number of cases instituted around 25%, say the official court figures. It was 25.42% during 2020.
The total number of pending cases in Bihar’s subordinate courts stand at a staggering 33.37 lakh, including over 28.78 lakh criminal cases.
So far, the cumulative figure of excise cases in the Patna HC between 2018 and 2021 (up to May 31) comes to 57,159, which includes 32,909 for regular bail, 23,495 for anticipatory bail and 314 for quashing, besides others. The highest number of 26,270 cases were filed in 2019, up from 20,548 in 2018, though it dropped to 12,763 in the pandemic year 2020 and 8,070 in just first five months of another pandemic year 2021.
In the subordinate courts, the pendency is much higher every year, though there are striking interdistrict variations. They have to additionally settle over 2.17 lakh excise cases that accrued in just last three years. Besides, there are 2.30 lakh bail matters related to Prohibition.
Another striking fact is that Kishanganj district, which borders West Bengal, has the lowest number of bail matters and excise cases consistently over the last three years, while Bhojpur, Rohtas, Saran, Madhubani, Muzaffarpur, East Champaran and West Champaran are among those district which reported the highest number during the period.
In 2019, alarmed by the growing pendency, the Patna High Court had asked the state government to present a plan for how it plans to dispose cases related to liquor trade. Though special courts were mandated in the new law for trial of liquor related cases, they could not be set up till then. Later, the state cabinet cleared a proposal for setting up 74 special courts. However, they are not yet functional despite cabinet nod for creation of subordinate courts.
A senior official said that the government wanted at least one court exclusively for hearing excise court and more than one in bigger districts. “The government had requested the HC for appointing judges. However, the HC authorised the court of additional district judge to hear excise cases also in every district, in addition to other cases,” the official said.
The special leave petition filed by the Bihar government in the Supreme Court in 2017 against the Patna High Court order quashing Prohibition remains stayed, while the litigations are growing and the number of judges in the HC has reached an all-time low with 35 vacancies ( including one falling vacant in September) against the sanctioned strength of 53.
Last month, the Patna High Court had directed that all proceedings related to confiscation of property under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, must positively be initiated/concluded within a period of 90 days from the date of appearance of the parties concerned and the appeal/revision, if any, be also decided within a period of 30 days from the date of initiation, failing which the “things” (vehicle/property/ etc.) shall be deemed to have been released in terms of several orders passed by this court in the past.
Citing various HC orders, the court said that the litigants were forced to approach the court due to delay in completing the proceedings or on account of noninitiation of such proceedings of confiscation. The court said it had already laid down the time schedule within which all proceedings were necessarily required to be concluded and the outer limit was three months.