Police officers who do the bidding of a government have to “pay back with interest” when the political regime changes, cautioned the Supreme Court on Monday as it took a grim view of the “growing trend”.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana was emphatic that such police officers should not expect mercy from a court of law if they choose to align themselves with a particular party in power.
“When you (police officer) are too close to the government, a day will come when you will be on the other side and will have to pay for your actions. When you are good with a government, you may extract money, benefits and all...then you have to pay back with interest when the government changes,” remarked the bench, which also comprised justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli.
The comments came as the court heard a petition by suspended senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Gurjinder Pal Singh, who faces arrest in a case of extortion. Singh, who was on August 26 granted protection from arrest by the top court in two separate cases involving sedition and corruption charges in Chhattisgarh, approached the apex court for similar relief in a third case of extortion.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the suspended officer, apprised the bench of the previous order and sought protection from arrest in the new case.
{{/usCountry}}Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the suspended officer, apprised the bench of the previous order and sought protection from arrest in the new case.
{{/usCountry}}The bench, however, expressed anguish at the state of affairs. “You cannot get protection in every case. You started extracting money because you were close with the government. This is what happens if you are close with the government and do such things...you have to pay back one day.”
It added: “This is too much...why should we grant protection to such officers? This is a new and growing trend in the country. Why should we protect someone like you?”
The senior lawyer replied that officers such as his client need the protection of the court because they are targeted out of vendetta. “This court had come across the facts in the previous cases when he (Singh) was protected from arrest earlier.”
To this, the bench said that it would want to hear all the petitions filed by the IPS officer together. The court issued a notice to the Chhattisgarh government and fixed all three petitions for a detailed hearing on October 1. It clarified that Singh will not be arrested till the next date of hearing.
In his first petition before the top court, the 1994-batch IPS officer asked for the quashing of a sedition FIR lodged at Raipur on July 8. This followed the FIR registered by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) for allegedly amassing assets.
According to the Chhattisgarh Police, when Singh’s house was raided by ACB, the police found some pieces of paper in a drain behind the house which were later reconstructed into some notes and reports against various functionaries of the state government. As per the police, these were intended to tarnish the image of the government and destroy peace and harmony in the state. Subsequently, in addition to a corruption FIR, another FIR invoking the sedition charge was registered against Singh.
The third FIR was lodged on a complaint by Kamal Kumar Sen, who cited an incident in 2015 when Singh allegedly extorted money from him after threatening to implicate him in a false case.
Singh approached the top court after the high court on September 16 did not protect him from arrest.
In his petitions, Singh has claimed that the criminal cases were foisted on him since he did not accede to a demand made by Chhattisgarh chief minister Bhupesh Baghel to frame the previous chief minister of the state in certain cases of illegal gratification. Singh has pleaded that the cases be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation for an unbiased probe.
During the hearing of the first two petitions on August 26, the Supreme Court urged police officials to conduct themselves in a responsible way so that the rule of law can endure. It pointed out that till the time they keep favouring political parties, such instances will keep happening.
“It is a very disturbing trend...In some way, the police department will have to be held responsible. Rule of law will not exist if police officers do not feel responsible and are made accountable for such behaviour,” the court said then.