In 1964, the Supreme Court, while quashing Punjab Chief Minister Partap Singh Kairon’s decision to suspend a highly placed government doctor, observed that before doing so, they were conscious of the high position held by the Chief Minister of a State but were compelled to interfere because the power was utilised for a collateral purpose, which is alien to power itself. Such cannot be said in the case of reinstating the Kerala DGP. The two-year tenure period is not inviolable as to not admit of any exigencies.
Public opinion over the handling of the Kollam fireworks tragedy and the rape of a Dalit woman may, in the bona fide opinion of the Chief Minister, be a good ground to interfere with the DGP’s tenure. Can the Supreme Court interfere merely on the ground that he has a two-year tenure and, therefore, according to the Prakash Singh case, that the Chief Minister’s decision is bad? It is true that well-placed police officials need protection. On that score, can you deny elbow space for elected representatives to govern the State in the people’s interest?
N.G.R. Prasad,
Chennai
