Jharkhand HC cracks down on 216 pending ACB probes, sets strict time limits
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, October 8: The Jharkhand High Court has cracked down on prolonged delays in corruption-related preliminary inquiries, taking…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, October 8: The Jharkhand High Court has cracked down on prolonged delays in corruption-related preliminary inquiries, taking serious note of 216 cases pending before the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), several of which have remained unresolved for years and, in some instances, more than a decade.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad has directed the ACB and the competent authorities to follow strict timelines for completing preliminary inquiries and taking decisions on cases awaiting further orders.
The judgment was pronounced on October 6 in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation concerning delays in corruption investigations.
According to the latest status submitted before the court, 216 preliminary inquiries were pending. Of these, 43 had been completed but were awaiting formal sanction or further orders at the Cabinet or Cabinet Minister level, while 173 remained pending at the inquiry stage before the ACB.
The court noted that 23 of the 43 completed files had been pending since before December 2025. It also observed that several preliminary inquiries had remained pending for more than a decade.
The Bench noted that Clause 21(4)(viii) of the Jharkhand government’s Notification No. 1623 dated August 7, 2015, already provides that a preliminary inquiry should ordinarily be completed within three months. Any extension requires approval of the Bureau Chief and periodic review.
HC invokes Article 21
The court held that the constitutional guarantee of speedy justice under Article 21 extends beyond the formal trial to the preliminary investigation stage.
It observed that keeping a preliminary inquiry pending indefinitely can cause prolonged uncertainty and affect an individual’s service career, vigilance clearance and reputation. At the same time, unexplained delays can undermine the objective of investigating corruption and bringing those responsible to justice.
The court said the constitutional requirement of speedy justice must balance both public interest in combating corruption and the individual interest in securing a timely conclusion to an inquiry.
Three-month norm, six-month limit for pending probes
The High Court directed that a preliminary inquiry should ordinarily be completed within three months.
Where an extension is granted by the Bureau Chief, the inquiry should preferably be completed within six months from the date of its institution. If it needs to continue beyond six months, the Bureau Chief must record the reasons in writing, specify the additional period and review the extension at short intervals.
The court also directed that reasons for extensions must be recorded on the inquiry file and remain available for scrutiny by the competent authority.
Cabinet decisions also put on deadline
For inquiries that have already been completed and submitted to the competent authority, including the Cabinet or Cabinet Vigilance Department, for permission to register an FIR or for any other order, the authority must take a decision within three months of receipt.
An additional month may be taken only when reasons are recorded in writing.
The court directed that the same timelines apply to the 216 existing pending inquiries. Inquiries still pending at the Bureau must be completed within six months from the date of the judgment, except where a further extension is justified and properly recorded.
ACB to submit six-month status report
The Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau has also been directed to file a status report after six months.
The report must provide details of every pending inquiry, including the date it was instituted, whether it has been completed, whether it has been submitted for orders and whether the competent authority has permitted registration of an FIR, directed closure or passed any other order.
The court said the prolonged pendency of preliminary inquiries could not be allowed to continue without adequate explanation. It concluded by expressing the hope that the directions would ensure that the pending inquiries are taken to their logical conclusion.
