New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reinstated T P Senkumar, the former director general of police in Kerala, who was shunted out by the state government.
Senkumar was transferred by the present Left Democratic Front government led by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan to the Kerala Police Housing and Construction Ltd as its chairman and managing director. Lokanath Behara had replaced him as the new DGP.
It’s rare for the apex court to interfere in such appointments and the ruling has led to a debate on judicial overreach.
Though it may be argued that the government has the right to appoint a DGP of its choice, but Senkumar had argued that the case against him reeked of arbitrariness and was a result of his fair and efficient probe in the cases of political murders in the state, wherein some leaders of the present government were found to be accused.
News18 takes a look at reasons why the apex court may have decided to interfere in the matter:
1. Senkumar had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in June 2016, questioning his removal and had stated that his removal violated the Kerala Police Act, which ensures a two-year term for a DGP. In this case, it was only a year. He also approached the High Court of Kerala. Disappointed by both verdicts, he had gone to the SC. The apex court took his claims into consideration and only interpreted and protected the Rule of Law.
When asked, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave said, “Judiciary can interfere in any matter whether it is police or army. If there is illegality or arbitrariness in any department, then the judiciary can completely interfere. The court has clearly talked about the violation of the Kerala Police Act as well.”
2. Usually, the judiciary does not intervene in matters of police but in the Prakash Singh case, the court was confronted with a plea from a retired police officer to make the police accountable to the law and also address the issues to bridge the gaps in the functioning of the police. This made SC deliver a verdict on police reforms. That verdict was heavily relied upon by Dushyant Dave, who appeared for Senkumar before the SC’
However, a former Additional Solicitor General, who spoke to News18 on condition of anonymity, said, “self-imposed restraint must be exercised by the judiciary in such cases.”
“The apex court certainly has the power of judicial review, but the power is very wide. When there is such a sensitive case, then its best for the judiciary to impose a self-imposed restriction, restraint and also discipline to keep away from interfering in such matters,” said the former Additional Solicitor General.
3. Senkumar’s another contention was that the decision to remove him had an irreparable effect on his career. Dave had said that Senkumar’s removal had nothing to do with the Jisha Murder Case or the Puttingal Fire Tragedy. He argued Senkumar’s removal was due to the extensive probe conducted by him into the political killings in the state, which had brought several ruling party leaders under the radar. He specifically pointed out Senkumar’s investigation into the T P Chandrasekharan Murder Case and the Shukoor Murder Case, both of which were allegedly political murders and where the accused were CPI (M) workers.
4. The SC in its verdict has said that “it was disturbed” as to how the Temple Fire Tragedy and the Jisha Murder Case were “resurrected” as soon as the LDF government took charge in the state and ruled that while expectations and public sentiment from the police lay “dormant for more than a month”, it had suddenly resumed vigour with the new government coming in.
5. Harish Salve, who had appeared for the state of Kerala, primarily submitted that Senkumar’s handling of the Jisha Murder Case and the Temple Fire Tragedy failed to inspire the public confidence, and thereby brought disrepute to the state police forces. But Senkumar had clearly refuted such claims and had laid down that CM Vijayan had, on March 2017, while addressing the state legislature stated that Senkumar was not removed for the handling of Jisha Murder Case. Even for the temple tragedy, Senkumar said the nine points he had proposed to understand the issues related to the fire were missing from the file, and the same had been submitted again to the SC bench.
6. The apex court also took note of Senkumar’s statement that the present state government perceived him as a political opponent as the CM himself had called him a member of an opponent political party, and that only buttresses his point that he was a victim of his independent and thorough investigation into the political killings.
7. The apex court also noted that there were always cases of violence and crime being reported in a state and if a DGP was removed for such reasons, there would be no police officers left in the state.