It wonders how Home Secretary can head the SPCA in violation of SC orders –Justices M.M. Sundresh and R. Hemalatha took serious note of the issue while hearing a public interest litigation petition filed in 2014, challenging the validity of Sections 10 and 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Reforms Act of 2013. The case was taken up now in the light of the custodial death of the father-son duo at Sattankulam in Thoothukudi district.
TAMIL NADUHC warns govt. of suo motu contempt proceedings
Mohamed Imranullah S.CHENNAI 13 JULY 2020 23:54 ISTUPDATED: 13 JULY 2020 23:54 IST
It wonders how Home Secretary can head the SPCA in violation of SC orders
The Madras High Court on Monday warned of initiating suo motucontempt of court proceedings against State government officials for having constituted the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) under the chairmanship of Home Secretary instead of a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge as per court orders.
Justices M.M. Sundresh and R. Hemalatha took serious note of the issue while hearing a public interest litigation petition filed in 2014, challenging the validity of Sections 10 and 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu Police Reforms Act of 2013. The case was taken up now in the light of the custodial death of the father-son duo at Sattankulam in Thoothukudi district.
Advertising
Advertising
Orders diluted
When petitioner’s counsel pointed out that the State government had, by way of legislation, watered down the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh’s case in 2006, the senior judge told a Special Government Pleader (SGP), “You can’t keep diluting court orders like this. Our patience is running out. We will initiate suo motucontempt proceedings.”
Further, directing SGP G.K. Muthukumar to ensure that either the Advocate General or an Additional Advocate General represent the State government in the case before them, the judges directed the Registry to list it again on July 20. “If the officials don’t want to understand, then we will speak in their language,” Justice Sundresh said.
Advocate Saravanan Dakshinamurthy had filed the PIL petition. He recalled that the Supreme Court had, in 2006, ordered for the constitution of SPCAs headed by retired Supreme Court/High Court judges and district-level police complaints authorities (DPCAs) chaired by retired district judges.
In 2007, when it was brought to the notice of the court that some States had not constituted the authorities properly, the Supreme Court issued another direction to ensure that the constitution was in conformity with its orders. Despite those directions and after seven long years, the TN Police Reforms Act was enacted stating that the Home Secretary would chair the SPCA and Collectors would head the DPCAs. After the relevant provisions of the law were put to challenge in the present case, the government counsel accepted notice and obtained adjournments from time to time.
When it was listed for hearing on November 15, 2016 before the first Division Bench of the then Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now a Supreme Court judge) and Justice R. Mahadevan, the then Additional Advocate General C. Manishankar conceded that there was some merit in the PIL petition and that he would advise the government appropriately.
Nevertheless, nothing transpired for about four years until November 14, 2019 when a GO was issued constituting the SPCAs as well as DPCAs in accordance with the Act and not the SC directives, the counsel said and urged the court to strike down the two crucial provisions of the 2013 legislation as unconstitutional.
