Appointment of Justice K.Narayana Kurup as Chairman of Kerala State Police Complaints Authority is in violation of SC directives

The appointment of Justice K.Narayana Kurup as the Chairman of Kerala State Police Complaint Authority [SPCA] stirs controversy in Kerala. Justice Kurup, a former Judge of the Kerala High Court, was appointed as the Chairman of the Police Complaint Authority last week by the State Government.The Supreme Court in Prakash Singh case (Prakash Singh and Others v Union of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC 1 ) directed to set up a Police Complaint Authority as part of the Police Reforms in India. The Court had ordered all State Governments and union territories to establish Police Complaints Authorities (PCAs) to address the huge volume of complaints against the police. In compliance of the directions, the Kerala Police Complaint Authority was established under S.110 of Kerala Police Act 2011[Act 8 of 2011],Section 110 of the Kerala Police Act 2011 reads as follows;110. Police Complaints Authority —(1) The Government shall constitute a State Police Complaints Authority for examining and inquiring the,—(i) complaints on all types of misconduct against police officers of and above the rank of Superintendent of Police;(ii) grave complaints against officers of other ranks in respect of sexual harassment of women in custody or causing death of any person or inflicting grievous hurt on any person or rape, etc.(2) The State Authority shall consist of the following members, namely:—(i) a retired Judge of a High Court who shall be the Chairperson of the Authority;(ii) an officer not below the rank of Principal Secretary to Government;(iii) an officer not below the rank of Additional Director General of Police;(iv) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from a three member panel of retired suitable officers not below the rank of Inspector General of Police furnished by the Chairman of the State Human Rights Commission; and(v) a person as may be fixed by the Government, in consultation with the Leader of Opposition, from a three member panel of retired suitable District Judges furnished by the State Lok Ayuktha.The Supreme Court has foreseen possible the flaws in the selection process of Chairman of the Police Complaint Authority and was cautious enough to emphasis the need for a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice of the respective High Courts. . The relevant extract from Prakash Singh dealing with Police Complaints Authority reads as follows :The Police Complaints Authority:“(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him.”The direction of the Supreme Court is so express to ignore and the Chairman has to be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice. It is reliably learnt that for the appointment of Justice Kurup as the Chairman of Kerala SPCA, Supreme Court direction is conveniently ignored. Sensing the reluctance of State Governments in implementing the Police Reforms, the Court has restated enforceability of its directions and reminded the State Governments that “Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution empowers this Court to issue such directions, as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter. All authorities are mandated by Article 144 to act in aid of the orders passed by this Court”. “In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations”. Unfortunately the State has not complied with directions.Legalism apart, there are other reasons staring at the appointment of Justice Kurup which could have been avoided. In recent controversy, Justice Kurup’s name has found place in a Writ Petition(WP(C).No. 12285 of 2011(S)) filed in the Kerala High Court, which was subsequently dismissed. The judgment of Justice Chelameswar, Chief Justice of Kerala High Court ( as his lordship then was ) begin as follows :“ The writ petition is filed with the prayers as follows: "(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions directing the respondent to take necessary steps to conduct a proper...

Appointment of Justice K.Narayana Kurup as Chairman of Kerala State Police Complaints Authority is in violation of SC directives

Boris Paul

Tags