[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Adiwashi Buddhijivi Manch vs The State Of Jharkhand on 13 January, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                2026:JHHC:932-DB




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            Cont. Case (Civil) No. 96 of 2025
1. Adiwashi Buddhijivi Manch, officiating at Ranchi through its
President Sri Safaniel Besra, aged about 64 years, S/o Late Manjhi
Besra, R/o Brindaban Taljhari, P.O.-Brindaban, P.S.- Tinpahar,
District - Sahebganj.
2. Etwa Munda, aged about 66 years, S/o Late Pandeya Munda, R/o
Pancham Nagar, Pipar Toli, P.O., P.S.-Pundag, District - Ranchi.
3. Somey Oraon, aged about 70 years, S/o Late Shani Oraon, R/o
Sarna Toli, Ward no. 13, P.O., P.S.- Sarna Toli, District - Loherdaga.
4. Damodar Sinku, aged about 61 years, S/o Late Binu Singh Sinku,
R/o- Harihar Singh Road, Behind Muslim Kabristan Morabadi, P.O.
Ranchi University, P.S. Misirgonda and District Ranchi.
                                  ...     ...      ...      Petitioners
                       Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Smt. Alka Tiwari, Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand
having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa & Distt-
Ranchi.
3. Shri K Srinivasan, Principal Secretary, Department of Rural
Development, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project
Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranch.
4. Shri Manoj Kumar, Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj,
Government of Jharkhand, having its office at F.F.P Building, P.O.,
P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
5. Shri Nalin Kumar, Principal Secretary, Department of Law
(Justice), Government of Jharkhand, having its office 2nd Floor,
Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
6. Shri Kripanand Jha, Principal Secretary, Department of Welfare,
Government of Jharkhand, having its at Project Bhawan, P.O., P.S.
Dhurwa & District Ranchi. ...       ...     ...      ... Opposite Parties
                       ---------

CORAM:            HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
                          ---------
For the Petitioners       : Mr. Abhishek Rai, Advocate.
                            Mr. Gyanendra Singh, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G.
                            Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.A.G.-II
                            Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to A.A.G.-II
                          ---------
15/Dated:13.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Rai, learned counsel who appears with

Mr. Gyanendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv

-1 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

Ranjan, learned Advocate General, who appears for the State along

with Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned Additional Advocate General-II.

2. This petition alleges contempt of our order dated 29th July

2024, by which we directed the framing of rules under the provisions

of the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (in

short 'PESA' Act, 1996), preferably within two months of the date of

receipt of the order.

3. Since there was no compliance, this contempt petition was

filed, prompting this Court to pass several orders. Initially,

opportunities were granted by extending the time limits for framing

the rules. By order of 9th September 2025, after it was brought to our

notice that minor minerals, including sand ghats, were being allotted

in violation of the rules, we restrained such allotments. In our order

of 4th December 2025, we pointed out that, on every occasion when

this matter was listed, it was represented that the rules were on the

verge of finalisation, yet no clear timelines were provided.

Accordingly, 4th respondent was directed to file a fresh affidavit

clearly setting out therein the timelines within which the PESA Rules

would be enacted.

4. The learned Advocate General now submits that the PESA

Rules have already been enacted and have been notified on 2nd

January 2026. No dispute is raised about the actual enactment of

such rules and the notification.

5. However, Mr Abhishek Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners,

referred to the various contentions set out in the petitioners' I.A.

No.353 of 2026 and pointed out that there was no genuine

-2 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

compliance with the orders made by this Court, but rather, this was a

case of an aggravated contempt.

6. Mr Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that

these rules are purported to have been framed in exercise of powers

conferred by section 131(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayati Raj Act,

2001, and the direction was to frame the rules under the PESA Act

of 1996. In any event, he submitted that the rules, as framed, run

counter to the letter and spirit of the PESA Act, 1996. He submitted

that such rules are ex facie ultra vires the PESA Act and, in fact,

constitute a blatant attempt to override its mandate. The Rules

purport to give a fresh lease of life to the laws, which conflicts with

the PESA Act of 1996.

7. Mr Rai, in fact, referred to several other contentions, which

have been transcribed in the I.A. in support of his submission that

the rules now enacted do not amount to compliance with the

direction issued by this Court, of which contempt is alleged. Based

on all these contentions, Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner,

submitted that this is a case of aggravated contempt.

8. Learned Advocate General contested the above submissions,

and he submitted that the rules are in consonance with the PESA

Act and there was no infirmity therein. In any event, learned

Advocate General referred us to our judgment and order of 29th July,

2024 of which contempt has been alleged and pointed out that this

Court, in paragraph 18, after hearing similar contentions in the

context of the draft rules which were presented, and observed that

the stage was not right for this Court to make any remarks upon the

-3 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

rival contentions concerning the validity or otherwise of the draft

rules. Further, he pointed out that para 26 of our order specifically

granted the liberty to challenge the rules once enacted.

9. Learned Advocate General submitted that though there was

some delay in framing the rules, the same was for genuine reasons.

The matter had to be referred to the Cabinet, and much

deliberations were held on the enactment of the rules. He submitted

that there was absolutely no intention to willfully or otherwise

disobey the orders made by this Court. He submitted that even this

Hon'ble Court had not fixed any specific timeline but had used the

expression "preferably within two months". Accordingly, he

submitted that this contempt petition may be dismissed.

10. Upon due consideration of the rival contentions and perusal of

the material on record, we remind ourselves that we are dealing with

this matter in exercise of our contempt jurisdiction.

11. Ordinarily, therefore, it is not for us to examine issues of

constitutional validity of the rules that have now been framed

pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Unless we are

satisfied that there was no compliance with our direction whatsoever

or that the delay was also not properly explained, we would be loath

to exercise our contempt jurisdiction.

12. The contentions set out in the Interlocutory application filed by

the petitioner, which were very well articulated by his counsel, Mr.

Rai, in our judgment, attack the rules that have now been framed

pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. The attack is mainly

on the grounds of unconstitutionality and ultra vires.

-4 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

13. The merits and demerits of such an attack will have to be

tested in some independent and appropriate proceedings if initiated.

However, we do not think it would be appropriate for us to go into all

such issues when exercising our contempt jurisdiction. This was not

a case where we had directed the framing of rules in a particular

manner, because such a writ is normally not issued. The direction

was to frame the rules, and now the rules have been framed. If the

rules, in the opinion of the petitioners, are unconstitutional, ultra

vires, or otherwise legally infirm, it is always open to the petitioners

to challenge them by instituting proper and independent

proceedings. Such a liberty is already granted to them.

14. As noted earlier, contempt jurisdictions are normally not

invoked, or at least not exercised, to pass substantive orders

declaring rules ultra vires. If any party is aggrieved, it is always open

to that party to file substantive proceedings, raising all permissible

grounds to challenge such rules. We have no doubt that if such a

challenge is raised, the same will be examined in accordance with

the law and on its own merits.

15. From our order dated 29th July 2024, we gather that certain

draft rules were presented before the Court, and at that stage,

several objections were also raised to those draft rules, which, we

gather, would be on the lines of the objections now raised in the

interim application. This Court observed that unless the rules are

framed, it would not be appropriate for this Court to remark on the

merits or demerits of the actual Rules.

-5 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

16. In the above regard, we refer to paragraph 18 of our order of

29th July 2024, which is transcribed below for the convenience of

reference.

"18. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and in an agreement with the submission made on behalf of the learned State Counsel that since the Rule making power is upon the State and unless the Rule will be framed then, only the constitutional Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India is having power to look into the constitutional validity of the said Rule under the power of judicial review.

But that stage has not yet come and as such this Court is not making any remark upon the merit of the objection made on behalf of the parties with respect to the draft publication of the rule, at this stage."

17. Similarly, we note that in paragraph 26 of our order of 29th July

2024, a specific liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the

rules in W.P. (PIL) No. 49 of 2021 and W.P. (PIL) No.1589 of 2021.

Therefore, paragraph 26 of our order dated 29th July 2024 is also

transcribed below for the convenience of reference.

"26. Before parting to the order, it needs to refer herein that since learned counsel for the petitioner of the W.P.(PIL) No. 4456 of 2021 has submitted that he has satisfied with the reasons order while dealing with the objection and as such, the observation which has been made by taking note of the fact that the party-in-person in W.P.(PIL) No. 49 of 2021 and the learned senior counsel who is representing the writ petition being W.P.(PIL) No. 1589 of 2021 will have liberty to challenge the proposed rule but the same will not be available to petitioner of the W.P.(PIL) No. 4456 of 2021."

-6 of 7- 2026:JHHC:932-DB

18. Therefore, considering the limited scope of these proceedings

and the fact that the Rules have now been enacted, though, after

some delay, we do not deem it appropriate to continue with these

proceedings any further. The contempt, ultimately, is a matter

between the Contemnor and the Court. Therefore, the notice of

contempt, which was issued, is hereby discharged. The interim

orders made by us earlier are also vacated.

19. As a matter of abundant caution, however, we clarify that we

have not remarked anything about the rival contentions regarding

the validity or otherwise of the Rules, now framed. Therefore, it will

be open to the petitioners to challenge such rules in accordance with