Communication of an Administratively Approved Transfer Order by a Subordinate Does Not Constitute Impermissible Delegation of Statutory Power

The petitioner, an undertrial with numerous criminal cases pending against him, was initially transferred from Adarsh Central Jail, Beur, Patna, to Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur, for six months effective 30.04.2025.

On 30.10.2025, the Assistant Inspector General (AIG), Prisons and Correctional Services, issued an order extending this transfer for a further six months.

This extension was based on recommendations from the District Magistrate and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna, citing concerns of criminal conspiracy, public interest, and law and order during the upcoming assembly elections.

The petitioner challenged the extension as ultra vires, arguing the AIG lacked statutory competence to order transfers.

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 was illegal and void due to lack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Inspector General of Prisons.

2. Whether the transfer of an undertrial prisoner requires prior permission from the trial court under whose warrant the prisoner is remanded.

3. Whether the administrative transfer violated the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Section 29(3) of the Prisoners Act, 1900 (Bihar Amendment), which empowers the State Government or the Inspector General (IG) of Prisons to remove prisoners between jails.

Rule 781(vii) of the Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, vesting the authority to transfer prisoners in the IG Prisons.

Rule 792(v) was applied regarding the AIG's duty to implement directions of the IG.

The principle of delegatus non potest delegare (a delegate cannot further delegate) as established in Union of India v. P.K. Roy, noting it does not apply where a subordinate merely communicates a superior’s decision.

"Procedure established by law" under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Court found that while the AIG signed the impugned order, the document explicitly stated that "approval of the Inspector General of Prisons and Correctional Services has been obtained".

Consequently, the IG—the statutory authority under Rule 781(vii)—had exercised the decision-making power, while the AIG acted merely as a "conduit" for communication under Rule 792(v).

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Saeed Sohail Sheikh, noting that unlike Maharashtra, Bihar has specific statutory rules (Bihar Prison Manual) governing transfers.

Regarding the right to a speedy trial, the Court observed that the State ensured the petitioner’s production in court via Video Conferencing or physical escort when required, thus satisfying the "fair and reasonable procedure" mandate of Article 21 without hampering trial proceedings.

The communication of an order by a subordinate after obtaining approval from the competent authority does not constitute an impermissible delegation of power.

The Court found no violation of Article 21 or judicial orders, as procedural safeguards for trial participation were maintained.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the order dated 30.10.2025 was affirmed.