Supreme Court's Directions On Police Reform 'Fallen On Deaf Ears': Gujarat High Court On Alleged Police Brutality Against Senior Citizen
Directing the Gujarat government to ensure proper functioning of State Police Complaints Authority (GSPCA) in a case concerning alleged police brutality meted out to a senior citizen, the Gujarat High Court said that the Supreme Court's directions on police reforms, misuse of power has "fallen on deaf years" despite being passed over a long passage of time. Referring to the Supreme Court's...
Directing the Gujarat government to ensure proper functioning of State Police Complaints Authority (GSPCA) in a case concerning alleged police brutality meted out to a senior citizen, the Gujarat High Court said that the Supreme Court's directions on police reforms, misuse of power has "fallen on deaf years" despite being passed over a long passage of time.
Referring to the Supreme Court's 2006 decision in Prakash Singh v UOI a single judge bench of Justice Hasmukh D Suthar in its order said, "At this stage, it would not be out of place to take note of the fact that though the Hon'ble Apex Court has given directions in the case of Prakash Singh with regard to police reforms and even otherwise there is a provision of section 147 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, misuse of police powers are widespread and day in and day out number of complaints being received against the behavior of police personnel".
"In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again raised the concerned and issued directions in the case of Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan vs. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble reported in (2003)...Monica Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2017)...and Munshi Singh Gautam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2005)...which are very relevant and important for the citizen of country as well as administration of criminal justice also. But, even after passage of long time, the said directions have fallen on deaf ears and situation does not seem to be showing any noticeable change," the court added.
The court thereafter directed the State to ensure effective and proper functioning of the Gujarat State Police Complaints Authority (GSPCA) and the District Police Complaint Authority in its true and perspective manner.
The court further directed the authorities to "look afresh" into the grievance raised by the petitioner senior citizen who had alleged that he was beaten by a police inspector and take appropriate action in light of the provision of Sections 32H and 32I of the Gujarat Police Act and submit the report to the Gujarat State Police Complaints Authority. It further directed that the petitioner be informed about the outcome of his November 2021 complaint/grievance–which he had registered with the GSPCA, at the earliest preferably within one month from receiving the high court's order.
For context, Section 32H of the Gujarat Police Act pertains to Establishment of District Police Complaints Authority and Section 32I pertains to Powers and functions of this authority.
The court further said that it would be open for the petitioner, to file any independent proceeding or criminal proceeding with respect to the "alleged act of police", which shall be decided independently on its own merit by the concerned authority.
Background
The petitioner–a senior citizen and Vice President of Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), Valsad fighting for the welfare of all living creatures claimed that on October 25, 2021 he had intercepted three trucks allegedly carrying animals without any pass permit violating Transportation Rules read with Motor Vehicles Rules. He informed the police control room; pursuant to this police personnel reached the place of incident informing him that he had been summoned by the Police Inspector of Valsad City Police Station.
The petitioner thereafter went to the police station where he alleged that the police inspector had "lashed out" on him (petitioner), "abused" him for intercepting the vehicles and he was "brutally beaten". After the petitioner was diagnosed with a blood clot and perforation in the left eardrum, on November 1, 2021 he sent a complaint to GSPCA requesting it to take "appropriate disciplinary as well as penal action against the offender".
The petitioner claimed that the authority simply transferred his complaint to the District Police Complaint Authority on November 10, 2021. Later the petitioner's statement was recorded before the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valsad.
The petitioner again wrote to GSPCA highlighting that since the complaint was preferred against the Police Inspector, it would fall within the jurisdictional ambit of GSPCA and not under the District Police Complaint Authority.
On November 29, 2021 the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Valsad that as the offence alleged against Police Inspector is under IPC Section 323 which is a non-cognizable offence, the petitioner should have sought relief through court.
He thereafter moved the high court in a writ petition seeking a direction for a detailed inquiry into the alleged police brutality. He had also sought quashing of GSPCA's November 10, 2021 letter informing him about transfer of his complaint to district authority. He further sought direction to GSPCA and Director General of Police to initiate department proceedings against the erring Police Inspector.
Findings
The high court, on a prima facie view, said that it appeared that the petitioner had raised a grievance regarding "police brutality due to which he has sustained injury and also availed medical treatment and for the said untoward incident". For this he had initially approached the GSPCA which referred him to District Authority and "without following the due procedure" the District Authority informed the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings.
"Prima facie, it appears that the said communication is not only against the settled principles of law but also in contravention of the provisions of sections 32H and 32J of the Gujarat Police Act and without following the due procedure as prescribed under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, communication (November 29, 2021) is communicated by the DySP, Valsad Division, Valsad to the present petitioner," it said.
The court further said that as the complaint was received by the District Police Complaint Authority, then as per section 32H(3) of the Act, the complaint of the petitioner was required to be investigated.
"Herein, it is not investigated by the committee but one of the member i.e. DySP on his own made the correspondence and given a reply and it appears that the said reply does not depict that the complaint is properly investigated. Even after the investigation of the said complaint in terms of section 32H(B), the report is not sent to the concerned authority for taking appropriate action. The authority has ensured through the learned APP that District Police Complaint Authority will look into the matter and complaint be once again placed for adjudication before the District Police Complaint Authority established under Section 32H of the Gujarat Police Act," the court said.
The high court went on to partly allowed petition and set aside the GSPCA's November 29, 2021 communication to the petitioner.
Case Title: RAJESH HASTIMAL SHAH v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 140