The recent rulings by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court of India have raised critical questions regarding land rights and the preservation of historical institutions in Bihar. The Patna High Court has intervened in a case involving the eviction of a Mahadalit woman, while the Supreme Court has struck down a controversial law aimed at acquiring a century-old library and research institute.

What led to the Patna High Court’s intervention?

On March 10, 2026, the Patna High Court directed the Bihar government to halt the eviction of Saroj Devi from her settlement in Begusarai district. This decision came as the court sought clarification from the state regarding the Bihar Land Encroachment Act of 1956. The court’s ruling emphasized the need for due process and protection of vulnerable populations, particularly in the context of land rights.

Supreme Court’s ruling on the library acquisition law

In a separate but equally significant ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a Bihar law that sought to acquire the Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidananda Sinha Library, established in 1924 by Sachchidanand Sinha in memory of his wife, Radhika Sinha. The court found the law to be manifestly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.

Details of the law and its implications

The 2015 Act allowed the state to take over the library for a token compensation of just one rupee. The Supreme Court ruled that such a provision was confiscatory and failed to meet constitutional scrutiny. The court stated, “A statutory provision that enables acquisition of property while reducing compensation to a token amount lacks the basic attributes of fairness.” This ruling restores the management and administration rights of the library to its trustees, reversing the effects of the 2015 Act.

Historical context of the library

The Srimati Radhika Sinha Institute and Sachchidananda Sinha Library was created through a trust supported by Sachchidanand Sinha’s personal funds, which included a contribution of 50,000 rupees from the sale of ancestral property, and a donation of 10,000 volumes of books. The library has served as a significant cultural and educational resource in Patna for nearly a century.

What comes next?

As the Patna High Court continues to seek clarification from the Bihar government regarding land rights, the implications of these rulings may extend beyond the immediate cases. The decisions highlight the ongoing challenges faced by marginalized communities in securing their rights and the importance of protecting historical institutions from arbitrary state actions.

These recent rulings by the Patna High Court and the Supreme Court underscore the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights and historical legacies in Bihar. As the legal landscape evolves, further developments in these cases will be closely monitored.

The post Patna high court: Recent Rulings by the and Supreme Court appeared first on yesdaidanews.com.

On March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India made a landmark ruling allowing the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana, a 32-year-old man who has been in a permanent vegetative state for over 13 years following a fall from the fourth floor of his accommodation in 2013.

This decision marks the first practical implementation of the passive euthanasia guidelines established by the Supreme Court in its 2018 Common Cause judgment. The court clarified that clinically administered nutrition qualifies as a form of medical treatment that can be withdrawn, emphasizing that the key question is whether continuing life-sustaining treatment serves the patient’s best interest.

Harish Rana’s parents initially approached the Delhi High Court in July 2024 seeking permission for passive euthanasia, but their request was rejected. In August 2024, the Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that withdrawing treatment would amount to active euthanasia, which remains illegal in India.

In December 2025, the Supreme Court directed the formation of a Primary Medical Board to assess Harish Rana’s condition, followed by an order for AIIMS New Delhi to establish a Secondary Medical Board for a final evaluation.

Justice JB Pardiwala remarked, “His family never left his side…to love someone is to care for them even in the darkest times.” This sentiment reflects the emotional weight of the decision, as the court recognized the family’s enduring commitment to Harish’s well-being.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows for the withdrawal of life support to be conducted in a dignified manner, with a 30-day reconsideration period waived for the treatment withdrawal process. The court stated, “We cannot keep the boy like this for all time to come,” highlighting the necessity for compassionate action in such cases.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court also recommended that the Union Government bring comprehensive legislation regarding passive euthanasia, indicating a potential shift in the legal landscape surrounding end-of-life care in India.

Harish Rana’s case has drawn comparisons to the Aruna Shanbaug case, which led to the 2011 Supreme Court ruling that legalized passive euthanasia in India. The ongoing discussions surrounding these cases reflect broader societal and ethical considerations regarding medical treatment and patient rights.

As the legal and medical communities respond to this significant ruling, the implications for future cases involving passive euthanasia in India remain to be seen.

The post Harish rana: Breaking Development in the Case appeared first on yesdaidanews.com.