Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Filed Against Conferring IPS Cadre To Retired Police Superintendent
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the Public Interest Litigation challenging the steps taken to confer Indian Police Service (IPS), Kerala Cadre to Abdul Rasheed, retired Superintendent of Police, without considering his alleged criminal background.A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that the petition did not stand at this stage after...
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the Public Interest Litigation challenging the steps taken to confer Indian Police Service (IPS), Kerala Cadre to Abdul Rasheed, retired Superintendent of Police, without considering his alleged criminal background.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that the petition did not stand at this stage after UPSC pointed out that the selection process for the cadre was not complete yet.
The petition was filed by a journalist challenging the steps taken to confer Indian Police Service (IPS), Kerala Cadre, to a retired Superintendent of Police without considering his alleged criminal background. The petitioner alleges that the respondent was in police custody for over a period of 90 days for attempting to commit the murder of a journalist named Unnithan and that several petitions challenging his discharge from the criminal case are still pending.
Abdul. Rasheed has been discharged in the case by CBI Special Court by order dated 24th April 2019
Fearing that the respondent might attack again if he is given police power and also in the interest of the security of the nation, the petitioner approached the High Court.
When the matter was taken up last month, the Court had directed the petitioner to move it as a PIL.
Today when the case was called, the counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate C. Unnikrishnan reiterated that conferring IPS cadre to a retired Police Superintendent of Police with an alleged criminal background is clearly a violation of the Supreme Court Decision in State of M.P and ors v. Praves Khan in which the court had established that a person with criminal antecedents would not be fit to be recruited to the police service while adding that even if they are acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that they were completely exonerated.
Advocate Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Standing Counsel for UPSC, submitted that the reliefs sought in the Writ Petition are not maintainable as the selection process has not been completed yet. He submitted that for conferment of IPS (Appointment by Promotion), only a select list has been drawn up, however, the said list is yet to be examined and approved by the Commission. Further, after the finalisation of the process involved taking note of the regulations and guidelines in force regarding the conferment of IPS (Appointment by Promotion), the matter has to be forwarded to the Central Government.
Recording the contention raised by the Standing Counsel appearing for UPSC, the Court observed that when the process of selection as IPS (Appointment by Promotion) is under consideration before the competent authorities, namely the Union Public Service Commission and the Central Government, then it is not for the Court to interfere with the process.
The Court also rejected the prayer sought by the petitioner for issuance of quo warranto against the 6th respondent and for the setting aside of his selection into IPS Cadre, as the 6th respondent as of the date of the judgment had not been selected to the IPS Cadre, and therefore, seeking a writ of quo warranto was premature.
Furthermore, the Court observed that it is for the Competent Authorities, to determine whether the 6th respondent is eligible to be appointed to IPS Cadre in view of his criminal antecedents.
Thereby, the Court dismissed the PIL.
Case Title: G. Vipinan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 402