Jharkhand High Court
Onkar Vishwakarma vs State Of Jharkhand Through Secretary on 1 April, 2026
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (PIL) No. 920 of 2021
Onkar Vishwakarma, Aged about 33 years, S/o Harendra
Vishwakarma, R/o Ward No.6, P.O.+P.S.- Domchanch, Mahthadih,
Koderma, Jharkhand-825418
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Health,
Medical Education and Family Welfare, Nepal House, Doranda,
P.O. & P.S-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, PO+PS- Sadar, Hazaribagh.
3. District Supply Officer, Hazaribagh, PO+PS- Sadar, Hazaribagh.
4. Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, PO+PS- Sadar,
Hazaribagh.
... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
---------
For the Petitioner: Ms Diksha Dwivedi, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mr Piyush Chitresh, A.C. to A.G.
---------
Reserved on: 26.03.2026 Pronounced on: 01/04/2026
Per M. S. Sonak, C.J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed in purported public
interest, seeking, inter alia, the following reliefs: —
a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to immediately put the
surviving victims of the kerosene fire and other burn
patients in the burn unit/department and, in the event
such facility is not available at Sadar Hospital,
Hazaribagh, to forthwith refer and admit such patients
Page 1 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DBto the burn unit/department at Rajendra Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi;
b) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to provide medical treatment
to all the victims free of cost, including medicines and
other related expenses, to be borne by the State
Government;
c) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay compensation to the
legal heirs of persons who died in the kerosene fire
incident in the district of Hazaribagh, to the extent of Rs.
50,00,000/-;
d) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay compensation to
persons who have suffered disability due to injuries in
the said incident, to the extent of Rs. 35,00,000/-;
e) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to pay compensation to the
injured persons, including the ones who have incurred
facial disfigurement, in the said incident, to the extent of
Rs. 25,00,000/-.
3. This petition has been instituted in the backdrop of an
unfortunate incident resulting in multiple deaths, burn injuries and
Page 2 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
fatalities, allegedly caused due to the use of highly inflammable
kerosene supplied through the Public Distribution System in
Hazaribagh. The petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that
several injured persons were admitted to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh,
and, according to the petitioner, were not receiving adequate treatment
owing to the absence of specialized burn care facilities.
4. It is the petitioner’s case that certain injured persons, including
members of the same family, were admitted in general wards and
required urgent transfer to dedicated burn units or to higher medical
centres such as Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi.
The petitioner has also alleged that essential medicines were not readily
available at the Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, and had to be procured
from outside sources.
5. The petitioner has further pleaded that, despite approaching the
concerned authorities, including the hospital administration and district
officials, no effective or timely action was taken to ensure proper
treatment for the victims or to address their grievances.
6. A significant aspect of the petitioner’s grievance pertains to the
nature of the commodity itself. It is pleaded that the kerosene supplied
to the victims was highly adulterated, rendering it unfit for domestic
use. Annexure 3, appended to the writ petition, contains the laboratory
reports, including those from the Indian Oil Corporation, which reveal
that the flash point of the said kerosene was a mere 13.5°C. This is
significantly below the prescribed safety minimum of 35°C. Such a
Page 3 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
deviation, according to the petitioner, effectively transformed a
domestic necessity into a lethal explosive.
7. Furthermore, the petitioner has detailed the devastating impact of
this systemic lapse. The tragedy resulted in four deaths, including a
two-year-old child and an elderly woman. Approximately fifteen other
persons, many of them women and minors, suffered grievous burn
injuries and permanent facial disfigurement. The petitioner contends
that these casualties were not the result of mere accidents, but a direct
consequence of the distribution of hazardous fuel through State-
authorized outlets.
8. It is also the petitioner’s case that the victims’ families, already
suffering from the trauma of the incident, were forced to purchase life-
saving medicines from the open market. The petitioner argues that the
State, having failed to ensure the quality of a regulated commodity,
cannot further shirk its responsibility by providing inadequate medical
care.
9. Advancing these grievances, the petitioner has placed on record
photographs of the injured persons as contained in Annexure-4,
appended to the writ petition. It is also the contention of the petitioner
that the absence of functional district-level burn units is not merely an
administrative lapse, but a breach of the constitutional mandate to
protect the right to life with dignity of the injured persons.
10. Presumably, as the core issues raised by the petitioner pertain to
the non-implementation of safety standards for burn victims and the
Page 4 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
systemic deficiency in specialised healthcare, the present matter was
categorised and treated as a “Public Interest Litigation.”
11. Regarding the relief sought in prayer Clause (A), which requests
a writ for the immediate admission or transfer of the remaining victims
of the kerosene fire to a dedicated burn unit or to Rajendra Institute of
Medical Sciences (RIMS), Ranchi, it should be noted that this relief
was based on the circumstances prevalent at the time of the incident.
12. However, no further submissions have been advanced on behalf
of the petitioner during the hearing to indicate that such a situation
presently subsists. We also do not find any material on record, whether
in the pleadings or in the affidavits filed by the parties, to demonstrate
the victims’ current status or the necessity of any immediate
intervention of the nature originally sought.
13. Having regard to the lapse of time, the incident being of the year
2021, and in the absence of any contemporaneous material justifying
the grant of such relief at this stage, we are of the view that the relief
sought in terms of prayer Clause (A) does not survive for consideration
and has, in effect, been rendered infructuous.
14. Insofar as the reliefs sought in terms of prayer Clauses (C), (D)
and (E) are concerned, namely, for issuance of directions to the
respondents to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and
to the injured victims in specified amounts, we note that such reliefs are
essentially in the nature of claims for monetary compensation arising
out of the incident in question.
Page 5 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
15. It is well-settled that the concept of compensatory jurisprudence
for the violation of fundamental rights is firmly entrenched in our
public law. In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, reported in (1983) 4 SCC
141, the Hon’ble Supreme Court first awarded monetary compensation
in a writ petition, holding that the Court is empowered to grant such
relief when there is an established violation of Article 21. This principle
was authoritatively crystallised in the case of Nilabati Behera v. State
of Orissa, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 746, in which the Hon’ble Apex
Court recognised the doctrine of ‘constitutional tort’ and clarified that
the defence of sovereign immunity is unavailable in such proceedings.
16. Thereafter, this principle of law has been consistently applied by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of D.K. Basu v. State of West
Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416 and Chairman, Railway
Board v. Chandrima Das, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 465
respectively. These dicta of the Hon’ble SC establish that when the
State fails in its constitutional duty to protect life, the court may direct
monetary relief as an integral part of the enforcement of fundamental
rights. In the present case, the Hazaribagh tragedy, underscored by the
systemic absence of functional burn units, represents a prima-facie
breach of this mandate.
17. However, the grant of such compensation in a specific quantum
necessarily depends upon the determination of relevant facts. This
includes an assessment of the nature of the incident, the extent of
negligence, and the definitive identification of the responsible parties.
Page 6 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
These are matters which ordinarily require the adjudication of evidence
and cannot appropriately be undertaken in the present Public Interest
Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
18. We also note that an FIR, bearing Mufassil P.S. Case No.
45/2021, has already been registered, and the matter is currently under
investigation or trial before the competent jurisdictional court. In such
circumstances, issuing a direction to pay specific, pre-determined
amounts of compensation would be premature at this stage.
19. At the same time, the victims cannot be left without a remedy. It
is necessary to take note of the statutory framework under S. 357-A of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding
provisions under Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023. These provisions establish a Victim Compensation
Scheme to provide immediate relief and rehabilitation to those who
have suffered loss or injury as a result of a crime.
20. Besides, the affected parties are always free to explore instituting
civil proceedings before the competent Courts to claim damages, etc.
The state must also consider whether any ad hoc payments can be made
to the identified victims or their legal representatives in such matters.
21. Accordingly, while we do not propose to grant the specific
monetary reliefs under prayer Clauses (C), (D), and (E) at this stage, we
clarify that the victims and their legal heirs remain entitled to invoke
these remedies. To ensure that this right does not remain illusory, we
shall issue appropriate directions in the concluding part of this
Page 7 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
judgment, mandating that the jurisdictional court and the concerned
District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) act with the requisite urgency
to provide necessary succour.
22. Moving ahead, while the petitioner’s initial grievances were
rooted in the specific tragedy at Hazaribagh, the proceedings in this
matter have brought to light a much larger, systemic deficiency. It is a
settled principle of PIL jurisprudence that once a matter of grave public
importance is brought before this Court, this Court may expand the
scope of the inquiry to ensure that the fundamental rights of a larger
class of citizens are protected. This Court, therefore, cannot remain a
mute spectator to a state-wide paralysis in specialized medical care.
23. In this context, it is pertinent to note that this Court, while
dealing with the present matter, identified the seminal public issue
concerning the plight of burn victims across the State. In the order
dated 22.07.2025, this Court took a proactive stance, observing that the
gravity of the subject matter outweighed any procedural defaults.
Paragraph 10 of the said order reads as follows:
“10. This Court, considering the nature of issue
involved in the present Public Interest Litigation, is of
the view that merely on account of non-appearance of
the learned counsel on record, it would not be proper
for this Court to close this Public Interest Litigation,
reason being, as has been admitted by the learned
State counsel also that the issue involved in the
Page 8 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DBpresent case is quite serious and no specialized ward
with modern facilities to deal with the patients of burn
injury is available in the Government hospitals in the
entire State.”
24. This admission by the State, as recorded in our earlier
proceedings, strikes at the very heart of the “Right to Health” under
Article 21. If, as admitted, no specialised burn care facility with modern
infrastructure exists in the Government hospitals across the entire State
of Jharkhand, then the constitutional guarantee of life with dignity
remains largely illusory for victims of fire trauma.
25. Consequently, the focus of this litigation shifted from the
individual claims of the Hazaribagh victims to a broader mandate, i.e.,
the establishment of a robust, state-wide, specialised burn medical
infrastructure. The Hazaribagh incident served merely as the diagnostic
event that exposed this state-wide paralysis in burn care management.
26. Pursuant to the order dated 22.07.2025 passed by this Court, the
State was directed to file a consolidated and comprehensive counter-
affidavit. Upon perusal of the said affidavit, which came to be filed
after some delay, this Court, by its order dated 24.09.2025, made the
following observations:
1. Even though the respondents have filed a counter affidavit in
terms with the order passed by this Court on 17.09.2025,
however, astonished to note the mismatch in the burn wards
available in the five medical colleges and hospitals of the State
of Jharkhand (Annexure-C series to the said counter affidavit).
Page 9 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
2. It would be noticed that in the case of Shahid Nirmal Mahto
Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad, the bed capacity of
the hospital in the burn ward is 14 as against which, 13
doctors and 7 staff nurses are posted there. In M.G.M. Medical
College and Hospital, Jamshedpur, as against the bed capacity
of 15, only one Associate Professor, 5 Junior Residents and 10
Staff Nurses are posted there. In Phulo-Jhano Medical College
and Hospital, Dumka, which has the bed capacity of 20, there
is no doctor and only 6 Staff Nurses are posted. Similarly,
Medininagar Medical College and Hospital, Palamu having
bed capacity of 10, there is only one staff and it is not known as
to whether the same is doctor or staff nurse. Lastly, in Sheikh
Bikhari Medical College and Hospital, Hazaribagh having bed
capacity of only 7, as many as 11 staff members are posted
there. We have specifically referred to as the ‘staff’ because it
is not known as to whether these 11 persons deputed there are
doctors or staff nurses or both as the case may be.
3. Likewise, the details regarding the government hospitals
have been given in Annexure-D series to the said counter
affidavit. On perusing along with the report of the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India on District Hospital Outcomes in
Jharkhand ((Report No. 3 of the year 2021) (Performance
Audit)]), it would be noticed that ‘construction of 10 bedded
burn units with supply of furniture and equipment in all 24
districts were sanctioned (August, 2014) at Rs. 1.35 Crore
each. Among these, four units were dropped (January, 2016)
and 20 units were completed at Rs. 12.40 Crore (between
September, 2015 and January, 2017). However, the completed
Page 10 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
units could not be made functional due to non-procurement of
equipment.’
4. Annexure-D series as mentioned above does not contain a
single detail of any of these units. It is beyond comprehension
as to how these units vanished in thin air. This also assumes
importance because the operational guidelines for
establishment of burn units in district hospitals under National
Programme for Prevention & Management of Burn Injuries
were formulated by the Central Government in the 12th Five
Year Plan and we have been informed that the financial aid
was granted to five hospitals/medical colleges of the Jharkhand
viz. Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad
(6.1632 Crore), District Hospital, Koderma (4.942 Crore),
Sadar Hospital, Daltonganj (4.942 Crore) and District
Hospital, Gumla (4.942 Crore). Even these Trauma Care
Facilities, which were allocated the funds as aforesaid, do not
find mention in the Annexure-D series.
5. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate
to direct the respondents to file a supplementary counter
affidavit clarifying the aforesaid position.
6. List this case on 29.10.2025.”
27. Moving ahead, in compliance with the above-noted order of this
Court dated 24.09.2025, the State, through the Director-in-Chief,
Health Services, Jharkhand, filed a supplementary affidavit dated
12.03.2026. In paragraph 9 of the said affidavit, it has been explicitly
stated that burn wards are in operation in hospitals throughout the 24
districts of the State of Jharkhand with “adequate logistics.” To
Page 11 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
substantiate this claim, a tabular chart was appended as Annexure-I,
purportedly showing the list of district hospitals which have operational
burn units.
28. However, a meticulous perusal of the said Annexure-I reveals
glaring inconsistencies that contradict the State’s own assertions. While
the State claims that burn wards are operational across all 24 districts,
the tabular representation lists only 22 units. Moreover, this internal
inconsistency is further highlighted by the fact that Jamshedpur has
been represented by two different hospitals, appearing at both serial
numbers 8 and 18 of the same table, meaning that even with multiple
facilities in one district, the list still fails to account for the remaining
districts of the State.
29. We find it difficult to reconcile the State’s current claim of
“adequate logistics” with the definitive findings of the Audit, especially
when the latest Annexure-I fails to provide a transparent accounting of
the very units previously flagged by the CAG in its performance audit
report on District Hospital Outcomes in Jharkhand in the year 2021.
Such a “paper-based” compliance mechanism, where infrastructure
exists in budgetary allocations and structural completions but remains
absent in clinical practice, risks rendering the fundamental right to
health under Article 21 illusory.
30. In a welfare State, the constitutional mandate of providing
effective medical care cannot be satisfied by the mere existence of
Page 12 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
buildings if they lack the life-saving machinery and trained manpower
essential for treating specialised trauma such as burn injuries.
31. The gravity of this systemic failure must be viewed through the
prism of the devastating impact that burn injuries have on the human
condition. Burn injury is not merely a clinical trauma; rather, it is a
significant public health crisis in India, which carries the highest
mortality and disability burden in the world. As noted in the study by
Yakupu A. et al. (2022), “The epidemiological characteristic and
trends of burns globally” (BMC Public Health 22: 1596), the 2019
Global Burden of Disease study estimates that India suffers more
than 25,000 deaths and 1.5 million Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs) annually due to burns.
32. The grim reality is further reinforced by the World Health
Organization (WHO) Global Health Estimates (2020), which
indicate that in 2019 alone, more than 23,000 fire-related deaths
were estimated in India. This accounts for approximately 20% of
the global mortality burden. Furthermore, the burden among women
aged 15-49 years in India is three times higher than among men,
highlighting a gendered vulnerability that a welfare State cannot ignore.
33. These statistics are not mere numbers; they represent a persistent
and profound challenge to the realisation of the “Right to Health” and
“Right to Effective Medical Care” guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. It has been time and again held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court that the right to life does not mean a mere animal
Page 13 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
existence. The Hon’ble court has held in numerous cases that it
encompasses the right to live with human dignity, which in turn
necessitates access to specialized, time-sensitive medical intervention.
In the case of burn trauma/injuries, where every minute is critical
to preventing multi-organ failure and permanent disfigurement,
the absence of functional, district-level burn units renders the
constitutional guarantee of life illusory for most of our citizens.
34. The transformation of the right to life from a mere negative
guarantee against State interference into a positive mandate for well-
being is a hallmark of our constitutional jurisprudence. Since the
landmark intervention in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, reported
in AIR 1978 SC 597, the process of elaborating the meaning of “life”
under Article 21 of our Constitution has been relentless.
35. Centrally positioned within this expanding galaxy of rights is the
Right to Health. In Consumer Education and Research Centre v.
Union of India, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 42 and Kirloskar Brothers
Ltd. v. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, reported in (1996)
2 SCC 682, the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the first time accepted that
the right to health is a meaningful and unwavering segment of life. By
reading Articles 39(a), 41, and 43 alongside Article 21, the Hon’ble
Court concluded that health and medical care are basic rights essential
for a life of dignity.
36. The specific duty of the State to provide emergency medical aid
was authoritatively established by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
Page 14 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
of Parmanand Katara v. Union of India, reported in (1989) 4 SCC
286, the Hon’ble Court held that securing the health of an injured
person is a paramount obligation, whether the facility is private or
public, and must be undertaken without waiting for legal formalities.
37. This principle finds its most direct application to the present case
in Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v. State of West Bengal,
reported in (1996) 4 SCC 37. In that case, the denial of medical aid to
an injured person due to the non-availability of beds was held to be a
violation of Article 21 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble
Apex Court categorically asserted that a welfare State cannot resort to a
“lack of financial funds” to bypass its constitutional obligation to
provide primary and emergency health infrastructure.
38. In view of the exhaustive constitutional and statutory framework
discussed hereinabove, it is evident that the “Right to Health” is not a
static concept but a dynamic obligation that evolves with the
availability of specialized medical knowledge and the State’s own
policy commitments. The NPPMBI Operational Guidelines,
formulated during the 12th Five-Year Plan, are not merely aspirational
documents, they constitute a “Standard of Care” that the State has
voluntarily undertaken to provide. When the State’s own data (at the
all-India level) admits that burn mortality in India, one death every four
minutes, exceeds that of Malaria and Tuberculosis, the failure to
operationalize even the sanctioned infrastructure in the districts of
Page 15 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
Jharkhand represents a significant gap in the fulfillment of the mandate
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
39. As emphasised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity (supra), the State cannot
plead financial constraints to shirk its primary obligation of providing
emergency medical care. The management of burns is a distinct
medical super-specialty that requires more than just a bed in a general
ward; it requires a sterile ecosystem, specialized logistics, and a
dedicated workforce. In a welfare State, the “Right to Life” includes the
right to a dignified recovery and the prevention of permanent
disfigurement.
40. Consequently, in view of the “seminal public issue” identified in
our order dated 22.07.2025, it is now evident that the existing internal
monitoring mechanisms have been insufficient to bridge the gap
between policy and practice.
41. The “Right to Health” under Article 21 is a positive mandate that
requires the State to provide specialized, time-sensitive medical
infrastructure, particularly for burn trauma, a condition where mortality
and disability are directly linked to the immediacy of specialized care.
42. The continued reliance on general medical facilities, years after
the formulation of the NPPMBI Operational Guidelines, necessitates a
structured judicial intervention to ensure that the constitutional
guarantee of life with dignity is translated into a functional reality.
Page 16 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
43. Accordingly, having regard to the material on record and the
issues noted above, we consider it appropriate to issue certain directions
to ensure that the availability of specialised burn care facilities in the
State is addressed in a time-bound manner, and dispose of the present
petition in the following terms. If any infrastructure has already been
established during the pendency of this litigation, such facilities shall be
appropriately strengthened and made fully functional in accordance
with law, so as to ensure effective medical care consistent with the
mandate of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution of India.
44. We therefore direct:
a) The State Government, through the Secretary,
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, shall ensure that dedicated burn units are
made fully functional in all district hospitals and
government medical colleges across the State of
Jharkhand within a period of 120 days from the date
of this judgment, in accordance with applicable
guidelines, including those issued under the National
Programme for Prevention and Management of Burn
Injuries (NPPMBI).
b) The state Government shall further ensure that such
burn units are not merely established in form but are
rendered fully functional, with the adequate
availability of trained medical and paramedical
Page 17 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DBpersonnel, essential equipment, and supporting
infrastructure, in strict adherence to the aforesaid
guidelines.
c) The State Government shall ensure that all designated
burn units are adequately stocked with essential
medicines, consumables and supplies required for the
management of burn injuries, in accordance with
standard treatment protocols and applicable
guidelines, and that uninterrupted availability of the
same is maintained at all times.
d) The State Government shall ensure that burn patients
are treated exclusively in designated burn units
equipped with appropriate isolation facilities and
infection-control measures, and not in general wards,
except, of course, in documented and unavoidable
circumstances.
e) To ensure the efficacy of these units, the State
Government shall take all necessary steps to provide
round-the-clock medical care, including uninterrupted
access to specialist services and emergency treatment
facilities within the said units.
f) Complementary to the infrastructure, the State
Government shall undertake comprehensive training
Page 18 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DBand capacity-building measures for doctors, nurses,
and paramedical staff engaged in burn care, in
accordance with applicable protocols, within a period
of 90 days from the date of this judgment.
g) The State Implementation Committee or State
Monitoring Committee, as contemplated under Clause
9.2 of the Operational Guidelines of the NPPMBI,
shall be made operational and functional forthwith.
However, if such a Committee has not yet been
constituted, the State Government shall ensure its
constitution within four weeks from today, strictly in
accordance with the aforesaid Guidelines.
h) The said Committee, headed by the Principal
Secretary (Health), shall function as the State-level
supervisory body to oversee the implementation of the
directions issued herein, including review of
infrastructure, manpower and the operational status of
burn units across the State. The Committee shall meet
at least once every three months to ensure that
deficiencies, if any, are identified and addressed
within the stipulated time frame.
i) The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand,
shall function as the nodal authority for the
coordination and day-to-day implementation of the
Page 19 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
directions issued in this judgment, while the State
Government shall ensure the allocation of adequate
financial and administrative resources for the same.
j) Insofar as the victims of the incident in question are
concerned, it shall be open to them or their legal heirs
to approach the jurisdictional court seized of the
proceedings arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No.
45/2021 for the grant of compensation, including
interim compensation, under the Victim
Compensation Scheme framed under Section 357-A
of the CRPC, 1973/Section 396 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. However, in the
event that any victims or their legal heirs are unable to
make such an application, the Secretary, District Legal
Services Authority (DLSA), Hazaribagh, shall take
appropriate steps, including with the assistance of
Para Legal Volunteers, to identify such victims and
facilitate the filing of applications.
k) The jurisdictional court shall, upon such application
being made or otherwise, consider the issue of grant
of compensation, including interim compensation, in
accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of three months from the
date of such application.
Page 20 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
l) Upon receipt of any recommendation from the
jurisdictional court, the District Legal Services
Authority (DLSA), Hazaribagh, shall act with
promptitude and, after conducting due enquiry in
accordance with law, take a decision on the claim for
compensation, preferably within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of such
recommendation.
m) The jurisdictional court seized of Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 45/2021 shall endeavour to proceed with the trial
expeditiously and, as far as practicable, ensure that the
trial is concluded at the earliest, in accordance with
law.
45. The Registry of this Court is directed to forthwith communicate
an authenticated copy of this order to: (i) the Principal
Secretary/Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and
Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand; (ii) the Director-in-Chief,
Health Services, Government of Jharkhand; (iii) the Principal District
and Sessions Judge-cum-Chairman, D.L.S.A, Hazaribagh; (iv) the
Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Hazaribag and
(v) the court having seisin of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 45/2021.
46. Before parting, we place on record our genuine appreciation for
the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The
meticulous research and constructive suggestions provided have been
Page 21 of 22
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:9192-DB
instrumental in enabling this Court to address the systemic gaps in the
state’s medical infrastructure in the larger public interest.
47. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. No
costs.
48. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this judgment
and order.
(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Dated: 01.04.2026
A.F.R.
Manoj/Cp.2
Uploaded on 01.04.2026
Page 22 of 22
