SC Stays Non-Bailable Warrant Against Karnataka DGP Issued By HC

In an urgent hearing convened on Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed an order of the Karnataka High Court issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant against the Director-General and Inspector-General of Police of the state.

"...to give proper explanation for transferring the petitioner (before the HC, who was challenging the cancellation of his transfer to the post of Dy SP, CCB, Bengaluru) on 30 occasions in 24 years", the High Court had on Tuesday felt "constrained to issue NBW" to secure the DGP's  presence on February 25.

The matter was heard by the bench headed by Chief Justice S. A. Bobde at the end of the board on Thursday, after SG Tushar Mehta drew the CJ's attention to the "unusual" order of the High Court in the 'mentioning' hour. The High Court had required the NBW to be executed by the Home Secretary to the state government.

'The original Writ Petition came up for consideration before the High Court for the first time on February 11 wherein the state was directed to file the response of the Director General and Inspector General of Police on or before February 14...When the matter was listed on February 18, Additional Government Advocate had sought a week's time to file the response of the State Govt. which period cannot be considered as inordinate, considering that the Writ Petition itself had been filed on January 31. It is humbly submitted that the Court rejected the request for a short accommodation and directed that the Petitioner to be present before it on the very same day before 4.45 p.m., failing which an NBW came to be issued against him', the SLP by the state of Karnataka narrates. 


It is submitted that the I.G. (Administration), "who is himself a Senior Police functionary", had appeared in person on behalf of the Police Department on that day itself.  Further, the High court had requested for explanation as to transfers over the entire 24 year service period, which took some time to gather and file in the form of the Affidavit. Moreover, it is contended that the impugned order failed to even consider the fact that the Petitioner has just taken charge of the post of DGP only in the Month of February and as such cannot be even remotely held liable for any transfers over the period of the last 24 years. 


"It is a well settled principle that that there is no vested right of any Govt. employee to seek a particular transfer. However, the Hon'ble High court has sought to look into the transfers of the Writ Petitioner over the entire service period of 24 years.   It is submitted that the State Govt. will be able to demonstrate from the service record of the Writ Petitioner that the transfers of the Writ Petitioner were justifiable in the facts and circumstances, more so when the said officer has also faced trap case proceedings under the Lokayukta Police Station at one stage", it has been argued.