SC slams Karnataka for ignoring order on DGP term

State govt earns court ire for being in a hurry to bring Bidari to top cops job

The Supreme Court on Thursday sought an explanation from the State government for the alleged violation of its 2006 directive for maintaining the minimum two-year term of any police chief in a state.

A bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice C K Prasad pulled up the State government for failing to adhere to its order with regard to police reforms in the ‘Prakash Singh versus Union of India’ case.

The court was hearing two special leave petitions (SLPs) by ousted DG&IGP of the State, Shankar Bidari, and the State government, challenging the order of the High Court of Karnataka order which had termed the IPS officer “worse than Saddam Hussain or Muammar Gaddafi” for the alleged atrocities committed by the STF team led by him during the hunt to nab forest brigand Veerappan in 2004.

The bench, which refused to pass any interim order to provide relief to Bidari, issued notice to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the State government seeking their responses on April 18, as to why then DG&IGP N Achutha Rao was not allowed to complete his two-year term and made to demit office.

“We want the state of Karnataka and Bidari to satisfy us to how and under what circumstances UPSC felt persuaded by the State government to take steps for appointment of a panel for the appointment of DGP and meeting of the empanelment committee for the appointment of DGP on November 30, 2011, in violation of this court’s direction in Prakash Singh Vs Union of India in 2006 in as much as N Achutha Rao could not complete two years term,” the bench said.

“How could you (State government) disobey this court? The role of State government has not been very fair vis-à-vis this court. How could you debunk Rao. You (State government) seemed to be in a hurry to bring this man (Bidari),” Justice Alam said.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the State government, had a tough time in putting forth any explanation. He went on to withdraw from the case.

He submitted that since he had assisted the apex court in the Prakash Singh case, he would wish not to continue appearing for the State government in the present case.

Appearing for Bidari, senior counsel and former Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam challenged the HC’s order saying it had disregarded the findings of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) for the alleged atrocities. The apex rights panel had closed the proceedings in the matter. The counsel claimed that the Justice Sadashiva panel report, which was referred to by the HC, was not made available to the petitioner.

The NHRC had set up a commission of inquiry headed by Justice A J Sadashiva, a former judge of the High Court of Karnataka, to investigate the alleged atrocities committed on residents of 48 villages in the border areas of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by security forces during the operations to nab Veerappan in 1999.

The HC had last month upheld the CAT order and quashed the appointment of Bidari as DG&IGP.

The division bench had directed for the appointment of A R Infant in his place.  The apex court verdict on police reforms has faced roadblocks on various counts - one, the fixed two-year term to the DGP and other police heads in the districts, with the Centre expressing reservations in the matter.

The respective state governments have also been found wanting in implementing fully the other seven directives, including setting up of the police establishment board and police complaint authority.

Speaking to Deccan Herald, petitioner and retired IPS officer Prakash Singh said no state had implemented the two-year tenure in letter and spirit. "If any state has implemented it - I recall Rajasthan doing it and probably Odisha - it is only by default. Perhaps, the state government would have acted had the apex court punished one or two of them for not implementing the order."