SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 225

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
The Registrar, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, & Another - Respondents
Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 7025 of 2008
Decided On : 21-02-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S.L. Bhapkar Advocate appointed as Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents: A.B. Girase, Government Pleader.

The State Government's compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in related cases and its effective steps to address concerns raised by the court.

Headnote:

Police Department - Deficiencies in Crime Investigation - Article 23-11-2008 - Suo Moto Writ Petition - Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others (2006(8) SCC 1), Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another (1998(1) SCC 226) - The court took suo moto cognizance of deficiencies in crime investigation and inadequacy of infrastructure in the police department based on a news article. A Suo Moto Writ Petition was filed by the Amicus Curiae. The court referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the cases of Prakash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others and Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another. The State Government filed detailed affidavits addressing the concerns raised by the court. The court found that the concerns had been addressed and disposed of the Writ Petition with a note of caution to the State Government to continue taking effective steps in the future.

Fact of the Case:

The court took suo moto cognizance of deficiencies in crime investigation and inadequacy of infrastructure in the police department based on a news article. A Suo Moto Writ Petition was filed by the Amicus Curiae.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the concerns raised had been addressed by the State Government and disposed of the Writ Petition with a note of caution to the State Government to continue taking effective steps in the future.

Issues: Deficiencies in crime investigation, inadequacy of infrastructure in the police department, compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court in related cases.

Ratio Decidendi: The State Government had taken effective steps to address the concerns raised by the court, and the court disposed of the Writ Petition with a note of caution to the State Government to continue taking effective steps in the future.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with a note of caution to the State Government to continue taking effective steps in the future.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. The Division Bench of this Court (CORAM : N.V. DABHOLKAR AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ.), on 24th November, 2008, passed following order:

"1. Article appeared in daily Lokmat yesterday i.e. dated 23-11-2008 was brought to the notice of Registrar (Administration) of this Court, by Advocate Shri S.L. Bhapkar with a suggestion that it may be treated as public interest litigation and placed before appropriate Bench for suitable directions. Registrar has placed that Article before us with the permission of Senior Judge at the Bench. The Article throws lights upon shortcomings, with which the department is suffering and also plight of common individual employed in the department.

2. The news item highlights following defectsI, Inadequacy of strength (only 137 policemen per 1,00,000 population).

(II) Entire machinery is engaged in maintaining law and order and consequently compelled to be negligent towards investigation and Court attendance. III. Practically each police station is required to maintain law and order over an area of 100 sq. mtrs. which is generally manned with only 50 police personnel.

3. Cases ending in acquittal because the investigating officers are over burdened with number of investigations and consequent failure to collect best possible evidence.

4. No separation of the department into Wings such as law and order, investigation and other duties, etc. We feel that some of the grievances expressed in the news paper article can also be experienced by others in daily life. Society has not flinched in putting unnecessary burden on the police machinery by going to all festivities, gatherings, morchas and protest, etc. With the passage of time, the notions of security have changed and police personnel are required to accord protection to VVIPs and VIPs and at times, even to witnesses, may be under the orders of the Court, and therefore, a note is required to be taken of inadequacy of man power at the disposal of police force. Needless to say that one is required to agree that, with the pressure of work and with the chronology of priority, law and order, security, investigation and Court attendance, even the criminal law justice system suffers with inadequate assistance from police department and, therefore, we are inclined to take a note of the news paper article, treating the same as public interest litigation.

5. We appoint Advocate Shri S.L. Bhapkar, who has drawn our attention to the matter, as amicus curiae, to prosecute writ petition. We have, therefore, directed Advocate Shri Bhapkar to draft appropriate petition reciting State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Home Department and Director General of Police, as respondents. We have directed Government Pleader Shri N.B. Khandare to render necessary assistance in the form of statistical data, which demonstrates the inadequacies of the department and necessity for strengthening of the force either by addition to the man power or by addition of better equipment or by reorganization of the force into branches etc. We expect Advocate Shri Bhapkar to file appropriate petition, by 19-12-2008. We also expect learned Government Pleader to keep Secretary, Home Department and Director General of Police, informed of our action of treating the matter as public interest litigation. We expect them to cooperate with the amicus curiae, by placing their difficulties before the Court. this need not be treated as ordinary litigation, wherein adversaries contest. .Authenticated copy allowed for the use of either party."

2. Thus, this Court has taken suo moto cognizance of a news published in Daily Lokmat on 23rd November, 2008, in respect of deficiencies in relation to crime investigation at the hands of the police department and inadequacy of infrastructure as well as paucity of police personnel, which has adversely affected the quality of investigation and having an impact on law and order situation. Therefore, as per the directions given by this Court a Suo Moto Writ Petitio






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top