DK Basu Guidelines Violated: Madras HC Initiates Suo Moto Contempt Proceedings Against DGP & Other Police Officials Over Lawyer's Arrest In 2017
The Madras High Court on Monday initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and other police officials for prima facie flouting the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case, while arresting a lawyer in 2017. Rajarathinam, the lawyer (now deceased) claimed that the Police entered his house at midnight without possessing any valid document,...
The Madras High Court on Monday initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and other police officials for prima facie flouting the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case, while arresting a lawyer in 2017.
Rajarathinam, the lawyer (now deceased) claimed that the Police entered his house at midnight without possessing any valid document, and forcefully took him to the Police Station. He alleged that his daughter was sleeping in a separate room and the policeman tried to open the said room. When his wife was attempting to take photographs of the incident with her mobile phone, her mobile phone was also snatched from her.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the report of the Magistrate concerned revealed about the excessiveness of the police and an act of violation allegedly committed by them. It observed that the police officials are expected to understand the scope of fundamental rights enumerated under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution while initiating action against any individuals.
Illegalities by law enforcing authority would have serious repercussions in the matter of fundamental rights ensured under the Constitution to every citizen. Excess exercise of power by the police authorities cannot be taken lightly or leniently. It would cause irreparable prejudice to the public at large and would effect the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The bench also expressed dismay over the long delay in concluding the disciplinary action that was initiated against the errant officials.
By keeping the matter pending for long years, the authorities competent may not form an opinion that they can bury the issues. The public authorities are expected to act spontaneously and swiftly as required under the law. Competent authorities / police officials violating the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court / Rule of law must be subjected to further actions by following the procedures as contemplated. Inaction will result in losing of trust on the system in the public domain, Court said.
After his arrest, Rajarathinam was produced before the Magistrate through a Senior Lawyer, appointed as an Advocate Commissioner to visit the police station. The incident witnessed by the Advocate Commissioner was recorded by the Magistrate and the Petitioner was admitted in a Government Hospital where he underwent treatment for injuries sustained.
The petitioners contended that the procedures prescribed by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case were not followed and the policemen violated rule of law in its entirety and had committed misconduct and violence.
Though the concerned officers were suspended, the order of suspension was revoked and they were reinstated. One of the officers was also allowed to retire from service without prejudice to the pending inquiry initiated against him, Petitioner alleged.
The court was satisfied that the procedures as contemplated under DK Basu were not followed. In light of the such matter, the thought it fit to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against the officials. It remarked,
"Competent police authorities are armed with wide powers and they are enjoying a special status in the society. Their duties and responsibilities are onerous in nature. Thus, any illegality or violation of rule of law, if committed by the law enforcing authority, it is to be viewed seriously, since such illegalities are causing infringement of the fundamental right of the citizens."
Case Title: S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
Case No: W.M.P.No.37619 of 2017 in W.P.No.33916 of 2017
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.M.Radhakrishnan for M/s.T.Fenn Walter Associates
Counsel for Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Government Advocate, Mr.G.Saravanan