In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- 9660
of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another Respondents
INDEX
|
S No
|
Description of documents relied upon
|
|
Page No
|
|
|
|
From
|
To
|
|
1.
|
List of Dates and Events (separate)
|
Separate
|
|
|
2.
|
Memo of Writ Petition
|
|
|
|
3.
|
Photo Identity of the petitioner
|
|
|
|
4.
|
Affidavit
|
|
|
Lucknow
Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- 9660
of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another Respondents
LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS
S No Date Event
1.
29/02/2012 First
of the complaints sent by the
petitioner
2.
2012-2013 Many
complaints regarding
Different
senior police officers sent
By
the petitioner
The petitioner has sent many complaints to the respondents to enquire
into various serious allegations against senior police officers regarding
alleged misdemenour, misconduct, Human Rights violation. The respondents have
so far failed to act upon any of these complaints.
If there had been an independent “Police Complaints Authority” to function autonomously and
independently, away from the influence of the respondents, such a thing would
never have happened. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ
Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark order dated 22/09/2006
has clearly directed formation of such “Police Complaints Authority” at districts and State level. Despite this order some seven years ago, the
respondents have failed to comply with this order. This apathy on the part of
the respondents has seriously affected the petitioner resulting in apathy and
inaction as regards his various complaints.
Hence this Writ Petition.
Lucknow
Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
In
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- 9660
of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh
Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti
Nagar, Lucknow-------- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of
Uttar Pradesh through Principle Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow
2. Director General of Police, Uttar
Pradesh, Lucknow----------- Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion
Judges of the aforesaid Court:
The humble petition of the above named petitioner most
respectfully begs to submit as under:
1.
That by means of this petition, the petitioner is invoking the
extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court vested with it through Article 226 of the Constitution to kindly issue a writ of
mandamus to direct the respondents, Principle Secretary (Home) (PS Home, for
short) and Director General of Police (DGP, for short) of Uttar Pradesh, to
immediately constitute the “Police Complaints Authorities” at the State and
district levels in Uttar Pradesh as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition
(civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) through its order dated 22/09/2006, within a
reasonable period, say two months and to kindly direct the respondents to refer
the various complaints sent by the petitioner against various police officers,
being mentioned in the subsequent Paras of this Writ Petition to the
appropriate Police Complaint Authorities so constituted.
The
petitioner declares that he has not filed any other Writ petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow
bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the
instant writ petition. It is further declared that in respect of the same
subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioner.
2. That the Petitioner Amitabh Thakur is an IPS officer of UP
Cadre and is also associated with works in the field of transparency and accountability
in governance and issues related with Human Rights at this individual level. Among
a few things he is seriously engaged in is regarding the alleged instances of inappropriate,
arbitrary, improper, illegal and authoritarian treatment meted to the
subordinate police officers in the UP Police by their superior officers. He is filing this Writ Petition in his
individual capacity as an affected party whose complaints have remained
completely unheard.
3. That as stated earlier, the petitioner has taken
up many issues related with alleged abuse, ill-treatment, exploitative behavior
and action of subordinate police officers by superior police authorities and
also as regards inappropriate action taken against him by superior police
officers, through the misuse of their superior positions and the power bestowed
to them.
4. That one of the instances where the petitioner sent a complaint as regards alleged
mistreatment to Sri Jay Prakash Kanaujia, the Stenographer in the Rules and Manuals
Department in UP Police, where the petitioner was then posted, of which the
petitioner is also a witness in the entire episode. On 29/02/2012, Sri Rahul
Asthana, then SP in the Rules and Manuals office (now retired) allegedly abused
Sri Kanaujia with the most filthy words, in the dirtiest of the manner, using
all kind of extremely abusive words. Sri
Kanaujia wept before the petitioner about this mistreatment and the petitioner
wrote a letter No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated 29/02/2012 immediately to the
DGP and DG of the Rules and Manuals Department to take appropriate action in
this matter.
5. That the DGP gave the enquiry to a DIG rank officer Sri Ashutosh Pandey,
who produced an enquiry report dated 16/03/2012 which came more like a covering
up exercise of the entire event. The enquiry report admitted that angry dirty words came from Sri Asthana’s
chamber but it saved Sri Asthana by giving him all possible benefits of doubt,
despite Sri Kanaujia and many other police officers who were eyewitnesses to
this episode giving their evidence against Sri Asthana.
6. That when the petitioner got this enquiry report through RTI, he was deeply
perturbed by the one sidedness of the report and the apparent slant of the
enquiry officer in saving the interests of a fellow IPS officer at the cost of
a subordinate police personnel.
7. That the petitioner sent a letter No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated
15/10/2012 to the DGP presenting the doubtful and apparently one-sided facts in
the enquiry report and asking for an independent and truthful enquiry. Sri
Kanaujia also wrote many letters to the DGP praying for enquiry but nothing
happened for long and finally when the petitioner went on pursuing the matter,
the DGP sent back the enquiry to IG (Rules and Manuals) under whom Sri Kanaujia
works. To the best of the petitioner’s information, the enquiry officer is
sitting over the matter for months. The petitioner has been orally told by Sri
Kanaujia that IG (Rules and Manuals) as enquiry officer had initially tried to persuade
Sri Kanaujia by asking him to forget the matter and let bygones be bygones so
as to give a statement that he did not want to pursue the matter any further.
But when Sri Kanaujia showed reluctance to this suggestion, the IG (Rules and
manuals) presumably forgot the enquiry and during many months of the
petitioner’s posting in Rules and manuals department, at least his statement
was not taken in the case, despite the petitioner being a witness of the entire
chain of events. The matter, to the petitioner’s knowledge remains pending and
he is sure that Sri Kanujia has very few possibilities of getting justice in
his complaint.
8. That the second instance is related with Sri V K Sharma, a retired DySP, who
was then posted to 38th Bn PAC, Aligarh. Sri Sharma was allegedly harassed
and suspended for having vented his pain and agony before the Media whereby he
had put some serious allegations of corruption against Sri A C Sharma, then
DGP. The moment his statement was relayed through some news channels, Sri V K
Sharma was suspended by the State Government on the recommendations of the DGP
and the enquiry was assigned to the DIG, PAC, Agra. Since the allegations were
there against the DGP of the State, there was naturally no point in getting the
matter enquired by an officer subordinate to the DGP and working under him. When
the petitioner came to know of this brutal and inhuman incidence, he talked to
Sri V K Sharma and after having gathered the requisite information, he sent a
letter No AT/VKS/DGP/01 dated 30/12/2012 in his individual
capacity to the Respondent No 1 requesting him to get the entire
matter enquired by a sufficiently senior officer outside the Police Department,
so as to bring the truth.
9. That in fact later this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 04/01/2013 in V
K Sharma vs State of UP and others (Writ Petition No 1587/2012 (S/B) very clearly said-“From the facts indicated above, it is evident that the impugned order of
suspension smacks arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the
authorities” and quashed the order of suspension, which this Hon’ble Court resorts
to only in the rarest cases.
10.
That since then the petitioner has sent
umpteen numbers of letters requesting for enquiry into the entire episode
including the allegations against Sri A C Sharma and the improper suspension of
Sri V K Sharma but nothing has happened in this matter so far and now both Sri
Sharmas have also retired.
11.
That in the third instance Sri Raghuraj
Singh Bhati, Sub Inspector posted in ps Mirapur in district Muzaffarnagar was
suspended by the then SSP of Muzaffarnagar. As per various news paper reports, the
SSP suspended Sri Bhati after the SSP had abused him using improper language on
which Sri Bhati, feeling hurt and humiliated wrote all these facts in the
General Diary of Mirapur police station. When the SSP came to know of this fact
that Sri Bhati had recorded this entire episode in the GD, she allegedly
suspended him. The enquiry against Sri Bhati was presumably given to an
Additional SP working under the same SSP who had been alleged of misbehavior
and abusive language.
12.
That when the petitioner came to know
of this episode, he talked to Sri Bhati on phone and after
having gathered the requisite information he immediately
wrote letter No AT/Muz/Home/01 dated 05/06/2013 in his individual capacity to the respondents where after
presenting the facts coming through Media reports, he prayed that the matter be
enquired by a sufficiently senior officer outside the Police department so as
to provide fair enquiry in the matter.
13.
That here again despite many reminders since
then nothing has happened in the case. After the petitioner’s letter, Sri Bhati
got almost immediately reinstated and the matter was presumably hushed up.
14.
That the fourth case is related with alleged
beating of three class IV employees (called “Followers) by SSP Moradabad at his
residence for having kept a ruling party politician waiting for an hour or so.
When the petitioner came to know of this brutal and inhuman incidence, he
talked to the three employees and after having gathered the requisite
information, he wrote to the respondents through Letter No AT/MBD/DGP/01 dated 22/09/2013 where he prayed for
administrative action against the SSP and also registration of FIR. The SSP got
suspended almost immediately but for days no Medical examination of these three
police employees was conducted, nor has any FIR been registered so far. The
matter has now been given for enquiry to IG, Zone, Bareilly and no one knows
what the fate of such an enquiry will be, where even the Medical examination of
the victims was conducted days after the episode only after much efforts by the
three followers and no FIR has till been registered, to the best of the
petitioner’s information.
15.
That the petitioner has full faith and
belief that all these instances related with the complaints presented by the
petitioner as regards alleged improprieties and denial of human rights to subordinate
police officers would have been quickly and correctly redressed had there been
an independent and autonomous police complaint cell/authority, not under the functional
and administrative control of the respondents.
16.
That as explained in above para, all
these complaints met such fate the complainant/victim is a subordinate police
officer and the person being alleged is a superior officer in the department,
though the petitioner agrees that the situation might be the same in cases of
complaints made by outsiders/common men against the police officers.
17.
That one of the major reasons for such
situations being faced by the petitioner and other victims whose cases he
espoused seems to be the absence of an independent Enquiry Committee/Grievance
redressal system and the present grievance redressal mechanism functioning
under the police department.
18.
That if there were an independent and
autonomous existence where every person, including the petitioner having his
grievance/complaint against the police officers mentioned above would have
presented his complaint, it would then have been enquired truthfully and
independently (without fear or favour) by that particular
Committee/Commission/authority.
19.
That if there was an independent
authority then such things as stated in above Para would never have happened.
Whenever the above complaints mentioned would have been presented, the Enquiry
Committee/authority would have taken up the complaint in a prescribed manner
and would definitely have undertaken an independent and autonomous enquiry
without going into the details of whether the accused police officer is a
Constable or a DGP.
20.
That since there is no such mechanism,
all the petitioner’s complaints have remained in the mercy of the respondents. No
one is willing to undertake the enquiry. Even if some enquiry is being conducted,
there is a possibility of its being an eyewash or face-saving exercise because
it can be easily understood that a DIG will not enquire against a DGP or because
of a possibility of one of these reasons- partisan behavior, nepotism, monetary
allurements, functional requirements, day to day interaction and so on.
21.
That one of the countries known,
respected and recognized widely for its efficient, humane, accountable and
independent policing is Great Britain. There they have adopted an Independent Police
Complaints Commission (IPCC, for short) which is a non-departmental public body
in England and Wales responsible for overseeing the system for handling
complaints made against police forces in England and Wales.
22.
That the IPCC is overseen by a Chair, ten operational and two
non-executive Commissioners. The Chair is a Crown appointment and Commissioners
are public appointments. The IPCC's Commissioners and staff are based in IPCC
regional offices. As well as employing its own independent investigators to
investigate the most serious cases, the IPCC has staff performing a number of
other functions. They also assess appeals from the public concerning the
outcome of police decisions regarding complaints. The IPCC also takes a lead
role in developing new policy for the complaints system and for police
practices.
23.
That the IPCC's ten operational Commissioners and two
non-executive Commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary for a five or
three-year period. The Chair is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of
the Home Secretary. Commissioners by law may not have served with the police at
any time, been the Chair or a member of SOCA at any time or been a Commissioner
or officer of Customs at any time. They are the public, independent face of the
IPCC. The Commission is the governing board of the IPCC, holding collective
responsibility for governance of the Commission including oversight of the
Executive. As public office holders, Commissioners oversee IPCC investigations
and the promotion of public confidence in the complaints system (known as
Guardianship). Each Commissioner also has responsibility for a particular
portfolio such as firearms, deaths in custody, road policing and youth
engagement. Commissioners in making decisions on individual cases act under the
delegated authority of the Commission. All appointments, which are full-time
and non-executive are for a five-year term, were through open competition. The
commission meets bi-monthly and dates can be found on the IPCC website.
24.
That the principle of natural justice, Nemo iudex in causa sua
(or nemo iudex in sua causa) which means, literally, no-one should be a
judge in their own cause also speaks and warrants the same thing, which says that
no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very
strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is
actually none because "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to
be done”
25.
That unfortunately this cardinal rule is being broken in this
particular aspect of justice where the person being complained against often
has very close relationship with the enquiry officer- either as a superior officer or as juniors or as
colleagues, friends, acquaintances etc
26.
That it was possibly with such things in mind that
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ
Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark
order dated 22.09.2006 said-“14. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the
parties, we have perused the various reports. In discharge of our
constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position,
we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments
and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate
legislations: Police Complaints Authority: (6) 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; the head of the district level Complaints
Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief
Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be
assisted by three to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in
different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State Government
from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State
Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired
civil servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from
the civil society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would have
to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them. The Authority may
also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries. For this
purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID,
Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints
Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by
the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous
hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority would,
apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion,
land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The
recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State
levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police
officer shall be binding on the concerned authority.”
27.
That unfortunately the same has not been adopted/incorporated in
the State of UP and that possibly is the prime reason for the petitioner’s bane
and problems.
28.
That as explained in above Para, if there such an independent Police
Complaints Authority at district and State level in the manner very clearly
illustrated and specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, none of the petitioner’s
complaints mentioned above would have gone unheard or would have met the fate
they are presently witnessing.
29.
That, with the above facts and
law, as
explained in some details in above Para, the petitioner being personally
aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents towards formation of Police
Complaints Authority at districts and State level as directed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court resulting in inaction and apathy towards all his complaints
mentioned in this Writ Petition, he is left with no other option than to
approach the Hon’ble Court with this Writ Petition to ask for certain prayers
because of the reasons being stated among the Grounds as enumerated below.
30.
That the
petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof has been enclosed along with.
GROUNDS
(1) Because the petitioner has sent many complaints to the respondents to
enquire into various serious allegations against senior police officers related
with other police officers
(2) Because the respondents have so far failed to act upon any of these
complaints
(3) Because if there had been an independent “Police Complaints Authority” to function autonomously and independently, away from the influence of
the respondents, such a thing would never have happened
(4) Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh
& Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996)
(Citation (2006)8SCC1)
at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark order dated 22/09/2006 has clearly
directed formation of such “Police Complaints Authority” at districts and State level
(5) Because despite this order some seven years ago, the respondents have
failed to comply with this order
(6) Because this apathy on the part of the respondents have seriously
affected the petitioner’s complaints as explained in the Petition
(7) Because most of the developing Nations have such independent “Police
Complaints Authority” known by different names
(8) Because it is the basic requirement of the Principle of Natural Justice Nemo iudex
in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa), that is, no-one should be a
judge in their own cause.
PRAYER
Wherefore,
it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-
(a)
Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, Principal
Secretary Home and Director General of Police, UP to immediately constitute the
“Police Complaints Authorities” at the State and district levels in Uttar
Pradesh as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ
Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) through its order dated
22/09/2006, within a reasonable period, say two months
(b)
Issue a writ of mandamus to
direct the respondents to refer the various complaints sent by the petitioner through
letters No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated 29/02/2012, AT/VKS/DGP/01 dated
30/12/2012, AT/Muz/Home/01 dated 05/06/2013 and AT/MBD/DGP/01 dated 22/09/2013 (along with subsequent
reminder letters etc) against various police officers, being mentioned in the subsequent
Paras of this Writ Petition, to the appropriate Police Complaint Authorities so
constituted for enquiry and appropriate action.
Lucknow
Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
Dated- 09/10/2013 Petitioner in Person # 94155-34526
In the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- of 2013 (M/B- Civil)
Amitabh Thakur Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another Respondents
AFFIDAVIT
I, Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o
Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism,
education- B Tech, profession- Government Service, the deponent, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-
1. That the
deponent is the sole petitioner in the above noted petition and as such he is
fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to
hereunder.
2. That the
contents of the paragraphs 1 of
the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge, based on documents and
records and believed
to be true or are based on legal advice.
3. That the
Annexure No NONE are the true copy of the original.
Place Lucknow (Amitabh
Thakur)
Date- 09/10/2013 Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify
that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed. So, help me God
Signed and verified this the day of 2013 at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of
records produced before me, who has signed before me.
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed me on at am/pm by the
deponent Amitabh Thakur, who has been identified by Sri clerk to Sri ,
Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the
deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been
read over and explained to him by me
Prakash
Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 September, 2006
Author:
S . Y.K.
Bench:
Y Sabharwal, C Thakker, P Balasubramanyan
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996
(2006)8SCC114. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the various reports. In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations:
Police Complaints Authority:
(6) 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; the head of the district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired civil servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them. The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority. National Security Commission:
No comments:
Post a Comment