📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / Flashthomsom
Crime
Jharkhand HC fines state Rs 8,000 for not filing response in SC/ST Act case against ED officials
✍️ The New Indian Express
🗓 03 Nov 2026, 06:16 AM
👁 14
The Jharkhand High Court imposed a cost of Rs 8,000 on the state government for failing to submit a response in a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) Act case involving Enforcement Directorate officials.
The Jharkhand High Court on Tuesday ordered the state government to pay a cost of Rs 8,000 after it did not file a reply in a pending case under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petition, filed by an aggrieved party, alleged that officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were implicated in actions that violated the Act.
The court observed that the state's failure to respond hampered the judicial process and amounted to non‑compliance with a court directive. Consequently, the bench directed the state to bear the cost as a punitive measure, underscoring the importance of timely cooperation with the judiciary.
Legal experts note that such cost orders, though modest in monetary value, serve as a warning to government bodies to adhere strictly to procedural timelines. The case remains pending, and the court may issue further orders depending on the next submissions.
The decision reflects the judiciary's growing vigilance in ensuring that the SC/ST Act is not undermined by procedural lapses, especially when law‑enforcement agencies are involved.
The court observed that the state's failure to respond hampered the judicial process and amounted to non‑compliance with a court directive. Consequently, the bench directed the state to bear the cost as a punitive measure, underscoring the importance of timely cooperation with the judiciary.
Legal experts note that such cost orders, though modest in monetary value, serve as a warning to government bodies to adhere strictly to procedural timelines. The case remains pending, and the court may issue further orders depending on the next submissions.
The decision reflects the judiciary's growing vigilance in ensuring that the SC/ST Act is not undermined by procedural lapses, especially when law‑enforcement agencies are involved.