Police, Professionals Appearing Before Court As Witness Should Come In Prescribed Uniform, Maintain Discipline: Madras High Court

“It is brought to the notice of this Court that the police personnel attending the Courts for deposing are not wearing proper uniform and maintaining decorum. A Police Officer, a Medical Practitioner, or any other Professional, while appearing before the Courts to depose as a witness, has to attend the Courts in the prescribed uniform, wherever applicable, and to maintain absolute integrity, discipline, and devotion to duty while deposing evidence before the Courts,” the court said.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice N Senthilkumar added that the judicial officer should strictly ensure that the professionals maintain discipline inside the court halls. The bench added that if the officers were found to engage in indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behaviour, the judicial officer should file a complaint before the competent authority for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue a circular, within 4 weeks, to all police personnel across the State, directing the police officers attending the courts to wear proper uniform and maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, failing which disciplinary action would be taken.

The court made the observations while hearing an appeal filed by Director General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and the Superintendent of Police, against the order passed by a single judge interfering with the punishment imposed on a police officer, who allegedly came to depose before a court in a drunken state.

As per the facts of the case, the employee police officer was working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police and appeared before the Judicial Magistrate to adduce evidence in a case. While his evidence was being recorded, the Magistrate observed that the officer appeared in a drunken state and an alcoholic smell was there with him. The Magistrate also noted that there was no coherence in his speech.

Following this, the Magistrate directed the officer to undergo medical examination. An Office Assistant and a Sub-Inspector of Police were sent along with the officer. After examination, the medical officer issued a certificate of drunkenness. However, blood and urine tests were not conducted. Based on the medical certificate, the Magistrate sent a complaint to the Superintendent of Police and departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the officer.

The Disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of “compulsory retirement from service” on the officer. On statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority took a lenient view and reduced the punishment to that of postponement of increment for 3 years. The revisional authority also confirmed the modified punishment. After 4 years, the officer moved the High Court challenging the modified punishment. The single judge set aside the punishment on the ground that urine and blood tests were not conducted.

The court noted that in disciplinary proceedings, it was not necessary to establish the charge by strict proof of evidence. The court noted that a preponderance of probabilities was sufficient to punish a Government employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. In the present case, the court noted that the Certificate of Drunkenness issued by the Medical Officer was sufficient to prove the charges.

The court also observed that the officer had attended the court in a drunken state, which had to be viewed strictly. The court added that the officer's act had degraded the image of the police force in the court hall and this misconduct will ruin the entire police force. The court also remarked that the officer, who had an experience of 30 years, had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty.

Thus, the court emphasised that the officers attending court were expected to maintain discipline and asked the DGP to issue necessary circular. The court also allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the single judge.

Counsel for Appellants: Dr. R. Gouri Government Counsel

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. K. Saravanan

Case Title: The Director General of Police and others v V Arumuram

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 328

Case No: WA NO 1850 OF 2026