'Special Police Officers' Not Covered Under Article 311 But Entitled To Minimum Safeguards Before Disengagement: J&K&L High Court

Update: 2026-09-21 14:50 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Special Police Officers (SPOs) engaged under Section 18 of the Jammu and Kashmir Police Act, 1983, are not entitled to the full procedural safeguards available to regular police officers under Article 311 of the Constitution, but are entitled to a minimum safeguard of notice and an opportunity of reply before any stigmatic order of disengagement is passed.

The Court thus modified the existing jurisprudence to carve out a middle path between full departmental enquiry and no process at all.

This exposition of law came while hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the UT of J&K challenging an order whereby the Writ Court had quashed an disengagement order and directed reinstatement of the respondent as SPO. The respondent had been disengaged on allegations of preparing and signing a false and fabricated verification report in respect of a person involved in criminal cases.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sanjeev Kumar, while disposing of the appeal, observed, "This Court is of the firm opinion that in the given perspective of Sections 18 and 19, Article 311 of the Constitution will not operate and only the immediate safeguard of a notice and a reply to the satisfaction of the respondent shall operate."

It added,

"For disengagement of people appointed under Section 18 of the Act, it shall be a requirement that wherever a stigma or allegation has resulted into such disengagement, they shall be entitled to a notice prior to the disengagement and after such notice is given and reasonable opportunity for filing reply or hearing is given, the appellant shall be free to pass appropriate orders."

The respondent SPO while deployed at Police Station Kupwara, allegedly prepared and signed a false and fabricated verification report in respect of a person, who was involved in a number of criminal cases, depicting that the said person was not involved in any subversive activities. A formal departmental enquiry was ordered and the findings recommended disengagement of the SPO. He was subsequently disengaged.

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the Writ Court, which quashed the order of disengagement and directed reinstatement with liberty to the Police Department to revisit the case after issuance of a show cause notice. The UT of J&K filed the present appeal challenging that order.

Sr AAG Mohsin Qadri for the appellants contended that Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Police Act, 1983, have to be read in tandem to understand the powers, privileges, protections and immunities available to SPOs, and that these were strictly operational in nature arising out of work exigencies and did not call for procedural safeguards available to full-time regular police officers.

Qadri further submitted that the tenure of an SPO is purely temporary on honorarium-based arrangement, which does not amount to holding a civil post, and that Article 311 safeguards were not attracted.

Court's Observation

The bench examined the legislative scheme of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Police Act, 1983, and observed that the legislative intent behind calling for appointment of SPOs was to enable immediate steps to be taken by police authorities for preservation and protection of inhabitants and property impacted by sudden unlawful assembly and disturbance of peace, by gathering support of local people who are residents of the neighbourhood.

The Court observed,

"Since, such temporary measures were required to maintain the law and order conditions, the legislature further gave them certain immunities in terms of powers laid down under Section 19 whereby the powers, privileges and functions were brought at par with the ordinary police officers so as to ensure that if any incident while meeting out the eventuality happens, the person so appointed will get the required immunity, protection and compensation in the shape of privileges."

The Court noted that Section 20, which provides for a fine not exceeding fifty rupees for refusal to serve as SPO, indicated the legislative intent that SPO engagement was a need-based, temporary arrangement. The Court observed that the judgments cited indicated that a minimum opportunity of hearing needs to be given before any final order is passed for discontinuing an SPO, particularly when it is stigmatic.

It held,

"It is needless to say that this Court is not hesitant to lay down and say that if at all such SPO is no longer required due to the end of exigencies envisaged under Section 18 and the termination is only on account of end of the task in question then probably even the parameters of natural justice would not be attracted as it would amount to only completion of the task in question for which the powers under Section 18 were invoked."

However, the Court carved out an exception and remarked,

"In the exceptional cases, where services of SPO is terminated or disengaged on account of any misconduct then it shall be a minimum requirement as laid down in various jurisprudences such as UT of J&K and others v. Shahen Shah (supra) that the opportunity of hearing and doctrine of audi alteram partem has to be followed."

The Court clarified, "This court is of the firm opinion that in the given perspective of Sections 18 and 19, Article 311 of the Constitution will not operate and only the immediate safeguard of a notice and a reply to the satisfaction of the respondent shall operate."

The High Court, thus modified the impugned order to the extent that for disengagement of persons appointed under Section 18 of the Act, wherever a stigma or allegation has resulted in such disengagement, they shall be entitled to a notice prior to disengagement, and after such notice and reasonable opportunity for filing reply or hearing is given, the authority shall be free to pass appropriate orders.

Accordingly, it is directed that the impugned order shall stand quashed but at the same time the appellants were given liberty to revisit the issue and reconsider the case of the petitioner after issuance of show cause notice and providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

Case Title: Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Shah