The Punjab government on Monday faced a volley of questions on setting up Police Complaints Authority (PCA) from the Punjab and Haryana high court.
The high court bench of justice RS Jha and justice Arun Palli was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) in which HC Arora, a high court lawyer, has challenged the provisions of Sections 54(2) and 54(3) of the Punjab Police Act, vide which the retired judges have been ‘virtually’ excluded from the category of eligible persons for appointment as chairperson.
As per the petitioner, only bureaucrats (including police officers) are eligible for appointment as chairperson.
The bench repeatedly asked the state’s counsel as to why the government has preferred bureaucrats over retired judges, against the well-considered recommendations of several commissions and committees of experts, which were the basis of directions issued by the Supreme Court.
The state’s counsel cited the jurisdiction of the state legislature, and argued that directions of the apex court ceased to have effect, once the legislature stepped in and enacted amended provisions of the law.
However, the bench asked as to how could the state legislature enact such a law when the apex court had categorically directed all states to make laws keeping in view its directions on the issue.
The bench reacted sharply after Arora referred to directions issued by Supreme Court in Parkash Singh’s case of 2006, which mandated state governments that “there shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the state level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level authority may be headed by a retired district judge while the state level authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the high court/supreme court. The head of the state level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the state government out of a panel of names proposed by the chief justice,” Arora had submitted.
{{/usCountry}}The bench reacted sharply after Arora referred to directions issued by Supreme Court in Parkash Singh’s case of 2006, which mandated state governments that “there shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the state level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level authority may be headed by a retired district judge while the state level authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the high court/supreme court. The head of the state level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the state government out of a panel of names proposed by the chief justice,” Arora had submitted.
{{/usCountry}}The state’s counsel had also submitted that a matter on constitution of PCAs was under examination of the Supreme Court. However, Arora countered it by submitting that the Punjab Police Act, or Haryana Police Act, were not under challenge before the apex court, and their validity should be tested by the high court.
The hearing in the matter was adjourned to March 25, by which the high court has directed both the states to file their affidavits clarifying whether the constitutional validity of the Punjab Police Act, or Haryana Police Act, is under challenge before the apex court.