The court affirms the administrative decision for the transfer extension of Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav, citing statutory compliance and security concerns.
In a significant ruling, the Patna High Court has upheld the administrative decision to extend the transfer of Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav, a petitioner challenging his transfer from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur. The court dismissed the criminal writ petition filed by the petitioner, thereby affirming the legality of the impugned order under the statutory framework of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 and the Prisoners Act, 1900.
The petitioner, Ritlal Rai, had sought relief through a writ of certiorari and mandamus, challenging the transfer extension order dated October 30, 2025, issued by the Assistant Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, Bihar, Patna. The petitioner argued that the Assistant Inspector General lacked the statutory authority to effect such a transfer, asserting that the impugned order was ultra vires and violated statutory provisions.
The court, presided over by Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, meticulously examined the statutory provisions governing prisoner transfers, particularly Rule 781(vii) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, and Section 29(2) and (3) of the Prisoners Act, 1900. The judgment clarified that the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, retains the sole authority to approve prisoner transfers, while the Assistant Inspector General merely communicates such orders, acting as a conduit rather than a delegate.
The court noted that the transfer extension was necessitated by credible information regarding criminal conspiracy during the petitioner's stay at Model Central Jail, Beur, Patna, as highlighted in confidential reports from the District Magistrate and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna. The extension was deemed necessary to address potential law and order issues and ensure public safety.
Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court found no infringement of this fundamental right, asserting that procedural safeguards were duly observed, with the petitioner being produced either physically or through video conferencing for court proceedings.
In dismissing the petition, the court underscored the distinction between communication and delegation of authority, emphasizing that the Assistant Inspector General's role was confined to executing the decisions approved by the Inspector General. The court rejected the petitioner's claims of arbitrary and non-speaking orders, affirming the administrative decision as a bona fide exercise of statutory power.
This ruling reaffirms the adherence to procedural norms within the prison administration in Bihar, upholding the statutory provisions for prisoner transfers while ensuring compliance with constitutional safeguards.
Bottom line:-
Transfer of prisoners under the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 and Prisoners Act, 1900 - Assistant Inspector General merely communicates the decision approved by the Inspector General, Prisons and Correctional Services, thereby not constituting a delegation of power.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Bihar Prison Manual, 2012 Rule 781(vii), Prisoners Act, 1900 Section 29(2) and (3).
Ritlal Rai @ Ritlal Yadav v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc id # 2889759
