On Monday, the High Court of Madras warned of initiating suo motu contempt of court proceedings against State Govt officials for having constituted the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) under the chairmanship of Home Secretary instead of a retired Apex Court or HC Judge as per court orders.
Justice M.M. Sundresh & Justice R. Hemalatha took serious note of the issue while hearing a PIL filed in 2014, challenging the validity of Sections 10 & 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 fatherson duo at Sattankulam in Thoothukudi district.
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 motu contempt 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.
Read also : SC Issues Notice To BCI On PIL Seeking Permission For Lawyers To Advertise
Advocate Saravanan Dakshinamurthy had filed the plea. He recalled that the Top Court had, in 2006, ordered for the constitution of SPCAs headed by retired SC/HC Judges & 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 & after seven long years, the TN Police Reforms Act was enacted stating that the Home Secretary would chair the SPCA & 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 & obtained adjournments from time to time.
When it was listed for hearing on Nov 15, 2016, before the first Division Bench of the then Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul (now a Supreme Court judge) & Justice R. Mahadevan, the then Additional Advocate General C. Manishankar conceded that there was some merit in the PIL & that he would advise the Govt appropriately.
Read also : Heavy Road Making Machinery Do Not Fall Under Motor Vehicle Act
Nevertheless, nothing transpired for about four years until Nov 14, 2019, when a GO was issued constituting the SPCAs as well as DPCAs in accordance with the Act & not the SC directives, the counsel said & urged the court to strike down the 2 crucial provisions of the 2013 legislation as unconstitutional.
Source Link
