: The State and district-level police complaints authority, which are headed by non-police administrative officers, are adequate to go into complaints against police personnel, the State government has submitted before the Madras High Court.
The government was responding to a public interest litigation petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 10 and 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act relating to the setting up of the authority at the State and district levels. Petitioner Saravanan Dakshinamurthy, an advocate, submitted that the Supreme Court, in the judgment in the Prakash Singh case, had issued various directives, including the constitution of a police complaints authority. As per the directive, the State-level authority may be headed by a retired judge of the High Court/Supreme Court and at the district-level authority by a retired district judge.
The petitioner said it was necessary that a retired judicial officer should head the authority to ensure independence. However, as per the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act, the State-level authority would be headed by the Home Secretary and district-level authority by the District Collector. So, the provisions in the Act were contrary to the Supreme Court directive. By excluding judicially trained officers, the participation of members of the civil society and by vesting complete powers of selection and appointment with the State government, the authority’s independence and capacity to perform its functions were curbed. Hence, the petitioner prayed to the court to declare the impugned provisions as arbitrary. The government should be directed to form the authority as per the Supreme Court directive.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Home Secretary, Apurva Varma, submitted that the Police Department, on its own ordered punishment to more than 3,000 police personnel. Provision was made in the Act to ensure that disciplinary action continued and this was enough to enquire into the complaints. The First Bench comprising Chief Justice S.K. Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh ordered that the matter be heard by III Bench. It posted the petition to January 28.