The Patna High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (Constitution and Service Condition) Rules, 2023 (as amended in 2024). Delivering a C.A.V. judgment on 21 February 2025, a Division Bench led by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy upheld the State’s rule-making power, the move to establish divisional-level Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs), and the operation of a statewide online claims portal with virtual hearing facilities. The Court concluded that the 2023 Rules and the 2024 amendments are consistent with Sections 165, 166 and 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as well as with binding Supreme Court precedents on tribunal independence and access to justice.
Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
This was a group of writ petitions filed by different aggrieved persons and stakeholders, including insurers, who questioned the legality of the Bihar MACT Rules, 2023. The primary objections were: (i) the reduction of tribunals from district level to divisional level, allegedly curtailing access to justice; (ii) the composition of the Selection/Search Committee for appointing MACT Chairpersons and Members, which (in the original 2023 framework) was dominated by executive officers and allegedly contrary to the Supreme Court’s guidance on tribunal independence; (iii) retrospective application of the rules from 01.04.2019; and (iv) the design of the State’s online claim-filing portal, which petitioners said did not fully reflect the claimant’s choice of forum under Section 166(2) MV Act.
During the proceedings, the State indicated it would revisit the rules. An important change followed on 27.08.2024: the State reconstituted the Selection Committee. Crucially, the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court (or a Judge nominated by the Chief Justice) was made Chair of the Committee, with judicial and departmental nominees as members. The State also amended the removal provisions regarding the Tribunal’s leadership. These steps directly addressed the grievance that the tribunal-appointment process must have a decisive judicial role per the Supreme Court’s approach to tribunal independence.
On the “access to justice” complaint about creating only ten divisional-level MACTs across Bihar (instead of having a tribunal in every district), the Court emphasized two points. First, Sections 165 and 176 of the MV Act allow the State to constitute one or more tribunals for specified areas and to make rules to carry the statutory scheme into effect. Secondly, the State has developed an online filing portal and enabled virtual hearings, which substantially reduces the need for physical travel, thereby supporting accessibility, speed and affordability of the adjudicatory process.
The Bench recorded that a claimant can choose the Claims Tribunal as permitted by Section 166(2): where the accident occurred, where the claimant resides or carries on business, or where the defendant resides. The online system does not take away that choice; it only streamlines filing and appearance and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s directions for a coordinated digital framework under the Motor Vehicles regime.
On retrospectivity, the Court accepted the State’s reasoning that fixing a watershed date for transfer/handling of cases can be valid when supported by savings and repeal provisions and when aligned to the objective of speedy and orderly adjudication. The Court reiterated the settled principle that within the scope of delegated legislation, an authority empowered to make rules can also provide for prospective or retrospective operation, unless barred.
After examining the statutory scheme and the 2023 Rules (as amended in 2024), the Court upheld: (a) the State’s competence to frame the Rules (including deciding the number and territorial spread of tribunals); (b) the revised Selection Committee led by the Chief Justice’s nominee; (c) the divisional model with ten tribunals, coupled with e-filing and virtual hearing facilities; and (d) the portal-based process as compliant with Section 166(2). Ultimately, the Court held that the challenge “fails,” and it dismissed all the writ petitions and disposed of all interlocutory applications.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
For the public, this judgment means that MACT compensation claims in Bihar will continue under the divisional tribunal model but with easier access via a State portal and virtual hearings. By confirming that the claimant’s choice of forum under Section 166(2) remains intact, the Court reassures accident victims that online filing is a facilitative procedural layer, not a constraint on the statutory right to choose jurisdiction.
For the State, the decision validates its policy to create ten dedicated divisional MACTs—while keeping the door open to add more if required—and endorses the governance logic of centralised, specialized benches for speed and uniformity. The Bench expressly recognized that judicial review does not weigh competing social or economic policy choices when the policy remains within constitutional and statutory limits; here, those limits were not crossed.
For advocates and insurers, the judgment clarifies that there is no bar on lawyers appearing physically or virtually before the tribunals and confirms that tribunal appointments will be anchored by a judicial head of the Selection Committee, strengthening the institutional independence of the forum.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
- Whether the Bihar MACT Rules, 2023 (as amended in 2024) are ultra vires Sections 165, 166 and 176 of the MV Act, 1988.
— Decision: No. The Court held the Rules are consistent with the parent Act’s framework. The State can constitute “one or more” tribunals for specified areas and make rules to carry the scheme into effect. - Whether constituting only ten divisional-level MACTs violates “access to justice.”
— Decision: No. Access to justice is preserved because the State has provided e-filing and virtual hearing facilities and can expand tribunal numbers if needed. The model satisfies the four facets—effective forum, reasonable distance, speedy process and affordability. - Whether the online portal and form limit the claimant’s statutory choice under Section 166(2).
— Decision: No. The portal facilitates, rather than restricts, the claimant’s choice of forum; virtual appearances are available. - Whether retrospective application from 01.04.2019 is invalid.
— Decision: No. The Court accepted that a rule-making authority may provide for a retrospective cut-off when supported by repeal/savings and aimed at orderly, speedy disposal. - Whether the Selection Committee lacked sufficient judicial control.
— Decision: Objection neutralized by the 27.08.2024 amendment placing the Chief Justice (or nominee) as Chair; this aligns with tribunal-independence norms.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2021) 7 SCC 369 (on tribunal independence; relied upon in argument against executive-heavy selection).
- Gohar Ahmad v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (2023) 4 SCC 381 (digital/portal framework context).
- Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1737 (ultra vires rule-making).
- Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (2009) 15 SCC 570 (limits of delegated legislation).
- Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509 (access to justice).
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Gohar Mohammad (Ahmad) and the Supreme Court’s direction for coordinated digital infrastructure; basis for validating Bihar’s portal and virtual hearing framework.
- Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509 (four facets of access to justice).
- Sanjeev Coke Mfg. Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (1983) 1 SCC 147 (judicial deference to policy choices).
- Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 (limits of judicial review of policy).
- In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2880 (scope of judicial review and constitutional validity framework).
Case Title
The General Insurance Council Vs. The State of Bihar
Case Number
CWJC No. 480 of 2024 (lead) with CWJC Nos. 627/2024, 740/2024, 1166/2024, 2453/2024, 2966/2024, 3265/2024, 6704/2024, 17455/2024.
Citation(s)
2025 (2) PLJR 167
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy. (C.A.V. judgment dated 21.02.2025; CAV Date 30.01.2025; Uploading Date 21.02.2025.)
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the State (Respondents): Learned Advocate General Mr. P.K. Shahi; assisted by Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate.
- For various petitioners (in connected matters): Learned counsel including Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Rajesh Kumar; Mr. Debesh Kumar Poddar; Mr. Amandeep Kumar; and others as recorded per case.
- For insurers/other respondents: Learned counsel including Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh (and team), as recorded per case.
Link to Judgment
MTUjNDgwIzIwMjQjMSNO-oXyN5pULBTo=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
