The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : Shortage of doctors at Forensic Science Laboratory: Chief Secretary summoned

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Karnataka

Karnataka - Bangalore

Shortage of doctors at Forensic Science Laboratory: Chief Secretary summoned

Staff Reporter

High Courtround-up The order was passed in view of delay in conducting narcoanalysis

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the Chief Secretary to be present in the court to explain why more doctors could not be appointed in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Bangalore.

A Division Bench, comprising Justice R. Gururajan and Justice Jawed Rahim, was hearing a habeas corpus petition when it passed the order directing the Chief Secretary to be present in the court.

A petition had been filed by Shiva seeking a direction to the police to produce Savitramma, wife of Ramaprasad, before the court.

On April 6, the court directed S. Malini, Assistant Director of FSL, who is in charge of psychiatry, to conduct a lie detector test on April 22 on an accused in the case.

The Bench noted that State Public Prosecutor (SPP) Dore Raju had told the court that steps would be taken by the Investigation Officer to show further progress in the case, which was adjourned to May 29.

When the case came up on Monday, the Bench noted the facts about narcoanalysis placed by the SPP before it. It said the test had been rescheduled.

The Bench said it questioned the SPP on the delay in conducting the test, and he admitted that the FSL was facing staff shortage. According to his information, there was only one doctor to conduct scientific tests. This, he said, was the reason for the delay in conducting the test.

Taking note of the SPP's submission, the Bench said it deemed it proper to direct the Chief Secretary to be present in the court and explain why more doctors could not be appointed in the FSL.

CJ need not be present

Justice N. Kumar on Monday said that if the Chief Justice of the High Court was made a party as a disciplinary authority in a writ petition, he (Chief Justice) could be impleaded in the matter. But, as he holds a high and dignified office, he need not appear before the court. The Chief Justice could defend his action as a disciplinary authority through the Registrar of the High Court.

If mala fide was alleged against the Chief Justice, he could, if he chose to, file an affidavit against the accusations.

Justice Kumar had gone into two questions in a petition filed by Sippe Gowda, former president of the Karnataka State Government Employees' Association and High Court employee, on whether the Chief Justice could be made a party in the petition, and whether he could be made a party in an order passed as a disciplinary authority imposing a penalty on a High Court employee, and who should represent him (the Chief Justice).

Mr. Sippe Gowda had petitioned the High Court challenging his dismissal from service. He had named the Registrar-General of the High Court, the Chief Justice and Disciplinary Authority, and the Registrar-Judicial as respondents.

The court was giving its finding on the issue of making the Chief Justice a party and who should represent him.

Justice Kumar, in his order, said personal immunity under Article 361 (1) of the Constitution was complete and, therefore, there was no question of the President or the Governor being made answerable to the court in respect of charges of mala fide. A similar identical provision confirming protection to the Chief Justice of a High Court was missing in the Constitution.

Therefore, it was clear that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to extend complete immunity to chief justices. "In the absence of any such immunity being extended to the office of the CJ, it is not possible to infer by implication any such immunity to them."

Justice Kumar said that on the administrative side, when the Chief Justice passed an order as a disciplinary authority, imposing a penalty on a High Court employee, it was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail