The necessity for supervisory investigation oversight when alleged bias or inadequacies in law enforcement are presented under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

JUDGMENT

The Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to hand over the investigation in crime no. 420/2025 of Alappuzha South Police station to the crime branch in the interest of justice for ensuring proper, fair and impartial investigation.

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to provide adequate redress to the petitioner, including compensation in terms of the right conferred under Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 4th respondent, district collector to replace the 5th respondent as the nodal ofÏcer and the secretary of police complaint authority.

AND iv. To issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case”[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, he is a victim under the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (for short ‘Act 1989’). The petitioner is a Govt. Employee working as ‘choukidar’ at control room in District Collectorate, Alappuzha for the last 15 years. The petitioner was a former Secretary of District Collectorate Staff Council. According to the petitioner, he is aggrieved by ‘untouchability’ based on cast, which is abolished and it’s practice in any form is forbidden in India, from his superior Nodal ofÏcer. According to the petitioner, the petitioner and another employee of Scheduled Cast not allowed to sign in the ofÏcial register along with the other employees and directed them to sign in a separate attendance register or separate register with part-time cleaning and sweeping staffs, though the petitioner was appointed as the Govt. employee through PSC. When this was questioned by the petitioner and asked the accused why he is removed from the ofÏcial register which he has been putting his signature for the last 15 years, the alleged accused replied that ‘the register is not for the dogs and cats and this is enough for dogs and cats in colloquial Malayalam’ and made him to sign only along with the part-time sweepers and thus humiliated inhumanly before the other staffs. It is the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 FIR was registered with the 5^th respondent as the accused. But no further legal action has been taken against the accused. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5^th respondent is the Secretary of the Police Complaint Authority of Alappuzha District who issued summons against the police ofÏcials including the Dy.SP regarding the complaint against the police. Hence, the 5th respondent is an influential person. Therefore, the investigation in this case is to be given to the Crime Branch is the submission.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Govt. Pleader and also the counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Special Govt. Pleader takes me through the counter afÏdavit filed by the 4th respondent. In the counter, all the allegations in the writ petition are denied word by word. The Special Govt. Pleader also submitted that the investigation is now conducted by the Dy. SP, Alappuzha. The counsel for the 5^th respondent also supported the contentions of the Special Govt. Pleader and submitted that all the allegations against the 5^th respondent are factually incorrect.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioner, Special Govt. Pleader and the 5^th respondent. I don’t want to make any observation a