Failure To Act Upon Complaints Against Govt Officials Unconstitutional, Causes No Confidence In Public Authorities: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court came down heavily on public authorities delaying action upon complaints by citizens against government officials. The court was hearing a plea by a man who had given a complaint to the Chief Secretary against an officer in 2016. When the complaint was not acted upon, he approached the court.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that failure of public authorities take action upon complaints would result in people's "no confidence" in the public authorities. Further, such inaction/omission was also unconstitutional and authorities had to ensure that such delay does not arise in the future.

Whenever a complaint is filed and there is some information, which requires an action, then the authorities competent are bound to act without any loss of time. In the event of failure, it will result in no confidence on the public authorities and such an inaction and omission is unconstitutional. Thus, the delay caused at the instance of the authorities are also to be looked into and such unnecessary and enormous delay in initiating an action is to be avoided in future. 

The original petitioner had given a complaint in 2016 against the officer. The court noted that there were several allegations against the respondent official even before the filing of the writ petition. Even then, the Chief Secretary had failed to take appropriate action against the officer.

It is for the Chief Secretary to look into the facts and circumstances and if any lapses committed by the authorities, who was holding the position at that point of time is responsible, then all appropriate actions are to be taken, the Court said. The public authorities are expected to perform their duties diligently and in the interest of public at large, it added.

Additional Advocate General J Ravindran submitted that after the matter was brought to the notice of the competent authorities through a representation by the original petitioner's son, a case had been registered under Section 420 IPC and had been taken up for investigation by the Commissioner of Police.

Since a criminal case had already been registered, the court gave liberty to the petitioner to pursue the case. The court also directed the Chief Secretary to take actions in such complaints within a reasonable time in the future.

Case Title: S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449

Case No: WP No. 44644 of 2016

Counsel for the Petitioner: Gagan Bothra (Party in person)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Ravindran Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.P.Sathish Additional Government Pleader

Click here to read/download the judgment