No Seriousness By Govts. To Implement Directions To Insulate Police Machinery From Political/executive Interference: Supreme Court in Param Bir Singh Order

first_imgTop StoriesNo Seriousness By Govts. To Implement Directions To Insulate Police Machinery From Political/executive Interference: Supreme Court in Param Bir Singh Order Srishti Ojha24 March 2021 6:10 AMShare This – xSupreme Court has on Wednesday observed that its 2006 judgement with regards to police reforms in the Prakash Singh’s case is only a ‘mantra recited periodically’, wherever the occasion so suits. The Court has stated that there has been no seriousness by all concerned to ever implement the directions enshrined in the judgment.A division Bench led by Justice SK Kaul observed that directions…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginSupreme Court has on Wednesday observed that its 2006 judgement with regards to police reforms in the Prakash Singh’s case is only a ‘mantra recited periodically’, wherever the occasion so suits. The Court has stated that there has been no seriousness by all concerned to ever implement the directions enshrined in the judgment.A division Bench led by Justice SK Kaul observed that directions issued in the case of Prakash Singh vs Union of India, were based on the principle of insulating police machinery from political or executive interference to make it more efficient and to strengthen the rule of law. The Court added that it appears that none want to give up, inter alia, the control of police transfers or implement measures that would insulate the police machinery from performing its role without any uncalled for interference.In Prakash Singh’s case, besides directing all the states to set up Police Establishment Boards, the Supreme Court had fixed tenure for DGPs, and recommended constitution of State Security Commission and Police Complaints Authorities at state and district levels, to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct and abuse of power by police personnel.The Apex Court today made these observations in its order passed in the plea filed by Former Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh seeking CBI investigation in the alleged corrupt malpractices of Anil Deshmukh, Home Minister of Government of Maharashtra. The observations were made in response to Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi’s reliance on Prakash Singh’s case, to submit that the Court had said that for effecting senior police transfers without completing 2 years is serious issue and can be done only if he is facing probe.”No State has affected police reforms. No body wants to do it, because no body wants to let go of the power” Justice Kaul remarked during the hearing. The Bench also stated that issue isn’t about the state, it is that the police reforms haven’t taken place despite judgement in Prakash Singhs’s case. Whenever some particular episode erupts people suddenly remember Prakash Singh’s judgement.The Court has today refused to entertain plea by Mumbai Police chief Param Bir Singh seeking CBI investigation in the alleged corrupt malpractices of Maharashtra Home Minister Anil Deshmukh, asking the petitioner to approach the High Court. The Bench stated that the matter is serious and will record it too. But Article 226 has wide powers, and it has the power to hear petitioner’s request of investigation by investigating agency.The Bench has observed that If investigation by an independent agency is being sought for by the petitioner, that is a relief which can also be granted by the High Court. “There have also been subsequent developments in the matter as has been noticed in terms of the report of Ms. Rashmi Shukla, Commissioner, State Intelligence Department. The High Court has the requisite authority to address the same.” the Bench has noted.Next Storylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *