Kailash Avhad told Rediff.com that when he appeared before DCP Sandeep Palve, the police officer expressed anger at his RTI applications, caught him by the collar, banged his head against the wall and rained blows behind his ear.
He then forced Avhad to touch his feet in apology.
Jyoti Punwani reports.
Two years ago, an RTI applicant was allegedly assaulted by a police officer in the latter’s office. But no action has yet been taken against the policeman.
Not even an FIR has been filed.
This despite there being a Police Complaints Authority in Mumbai functioning for the last two years, set up on orders of the Supreme Court in the Prakash Singh case on police reforms.
On Thursday, February 21, the PCA held the eighth hearing on this matter. This was to be the final hearing.
However, nothing happened because the accused policeman didn’t turn up. The complainant was informed that the policeman had to attend an important meeting.
The PCA is supposed to dispose of complaints within 60 days. This complaint is already a year old.
The case originated in an RTI application filed by Kalyan resident Kailash Avhad on January 31, 2017, asking for the educational qualifications of a Thane police officer who had spelt his name wrongly in a communication.
When the information was denied, Avhad appealed. The first Appellate Authority was Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic) Sandeep Palve.
Avhad told Rediff.com that when he appeared before Palve on March 23, 2017, the latter expressed anger at his RTI applications, caught him by the collar, banged his head against the wall and rained blows behind his ear.
He then forced Avhad to touch his feet in apology.
Avhad then went to the nearest government hospital. His medical reports show damage to one ear.
When the Naupada police station refused to lodge an FIR against Palve, Avhad gave a written complaint to the Thane police commissioner, and sent copies to the collector, Maharashtra home department, director general of police, information commission, chief minister’s office and governor’s office.
But no FIR was lodged.
Avhad then moved a second appeal.
In response, on January 11, 2018, the Konkan bench of the Maharashtra information commission ordered that he be provided the information he had asked for.
Commissioner Thancy Thekkekara also ordered that Palve be stripped of his powers as first appellate authority, and an inquiry be conducted against him.
When no action was taken, Avhad filed a complaint with the Police Complaints Authority on February 21, 2018.
Since then, seven hearings have been held in the matter, each of them asking for rejoinders from both parties.
In December, Palve was not present.
In January, the hearing was adjourned because PCA member and former additional director general of police P K Jain was not present.
The other two members of the PCA are retired justice A V Potdar and civil society representative Umakant Mitkar. The latter is a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, known for his work with children belonging to nomadic tribes.
Appearing for Avhad on Thursday, former chief information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi pointed out to the three-member panel that they were supposed to dispose of complaints within 90 days.
“If citizens have to come seven-eight times before the authority, they will stop coming,” he said.
But Jain told Gandhi that the 90 days deadline was subject to certain conditions. The PCA had no permanent staff; it was a systemic failure, he said.
He further said that if the respondent police officer said he had official work, there was no reason to disbelieve him.
Asked Gandhi: “If he had to appear in court, would he miss the court date by giving the same reason? The purpose of the PCA is not achieved by having so many hearings to decide one case.”
Jain pointed out that it was likely now with elections approaching, that police officers would not be able to appear.
“90% of cases are disposed of,” the former police officer added. “Not every case lingers.
Interestingly, in information obtained by Gandhi under the RTI, it was found that in 2018, out of 862 cases, only in six had punishment been recommended by the PCA.
In five, departmental inquiries were recommended; and in the sixth, the recommendation was “mild” punishment.
The PCA’s recommendations are not binding on the government points out Dolphy D’souza, head of the city unit of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative that works on police reforms though the Supreme Court had directed that they must be binding.
In the last quarter of 2018, 86 cases had been disposed of, according to the RTI information obtained by Gandhi. Hence, an estimated 350 cases would probably have been disposed of last year.
The expenditure on the PCA last year was Rs 5.2 crore (Rs 52 million).
PCA rules stipulate that the complainant must get a copy of the orders passed at every hearing. However, Avhad has had to file an application asking for the orders of the hearing held on December 11, 2018.
On Thursday, the order was given to him after Justice Potdar remarked that applicants must receive these orders as a right.
Dolphy D’souza, who was present at the hearing, felt that the PCA must introspect on not completing the inquiry process within 90 days.
“If timely disposal of the enquiry process does not happen, complainants and citizens will lose faith in the PCA, thereby defeating the very purpose of its existence, to act as a deterrent and hold the police accountable for their excesses,” he said.
After the hearing, an angry Shailesh Gandhi asked the media to call to account such tribunals.
“This is a simple case of a citizen being beaten up by the first Appellate Authority and no FIR being filed against the assailant, despite complaints being sent by registered post,” Gandhi said. “You have to hear both sides and decide who is telling the truth.”
In December, Avhad told the PCA that a clerk (writer) J K Ahire was present when he was assaulted, but he was unlikely to depose against his boss.
In fact, Avhad was informed by the Thane police last April that his complaint against Palve had been found to have been false, because the writer had told the police no such incident had taken place.
Avhad had not been heard in this inquiry, because he had insisted that he be sent a written communication asking him to appear for the inquiry.
That never came.
“Avhad is employed, educated, determined and very organised,” pointed out Gandhi. “But the average citizen at the receiving end of the police is poor, and scared of the police. After s/he gathers courage and complains, this is what happens.”
“It is the PCA’s job to figure out how to stick to the 90-day deadline. The way it violates its own rules will wear out any normal citizen,” added Gandhi.
“Is it worthwhile to have such a PCA? Does it have any moral authority? Should public funds to the tune of Rs 5.2 crore be spent on this PCA?” the former CIC asked.
Interestingly, in his latest written submission to the PCA, dated January 25, DCP Sandeep Palve has asked that Shailesh Gandhi be neither allowed to represent Avhad nor participate in the hearings, ‘as this inquiry does not cover anything covered under the RTI Act’.
Palve also accused Avhad of ‘causing nuisance by putting obnoxious queries and bizarre set of RTI demands’ and asked the PCA to direct the Thane crime branch to get its anti-extortion cell to inquire into Avhad’s activities.
Source: Rediff