Bench vs. Badge: Madras High Court Quashes Abusive Orders Targeting Police Officials

In a scathing rebuke of judicial overreach, the Madras High Court has invalidated two suo motu orders issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge of Kancheepuram. Justice N. Sathish Kumar, presiding over the matter, characterized the lower court's actions as a "clear abuse of process of law," initiated to settle personal grievances against police officers.

The Backdrop: Personal Scores and Legal Weapons

The dispute originated from a minor altercation at a bakery in late July 2025, involving the Personal Security Officer (PSO) of the Kancheepuram Principal District and Sessions Judge. While local police initially closed the case after an amicable settlement, the situation escalated when the Judge allegedly suspected his PSO of sending anonymous complaints against him.

According to the petitions filed, the Judge exerted extreme pressure on the local police to reopen the closed case and register FIRs against his own security staff under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. When the police failed to act with the desired alacrity, the Judge initiated arbitrary suo motu proceedings.

Arbitrary Externment and Unlawful Remand

The Principal District and Sessions Judge passed two controversial orders: 1. Externment (Sept 4, 2025): The Judge issued an order under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act, forcing the PSO and his family to leave the Kancheepuram district, despite the lack of a proper police report or administrative inquiry. 2. Judicial Remand (Sept 8, 2025): The Judge summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) to court and, upon expressing dissatisfaction with the pace of the investigation, ordered his immediate remand to judicial custody under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act.

Legal Analysis: The "Sine Qua Non" of Administrative Inquiry

Justice N. Sathish Kumar’s critique focused heavily on the misuse of the SC/ST Act, an instrument intended to protect vulnerable sections of society, not as a tool for personal vendettas.

The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in * State of GNCT of Delhi and others v. Praveen Kumar alias Prashanth (2024)*, emphasizing that: > "To set in motion the penal proceedings including taking cognizance for an offence of commission and omission under section 4(2) of the Act of 1989, the recommendation of the administrative enquiry is a sine qua non."

The Court clarified that an Investigating Officer’s discretion in making an arrest cannot be superseded by a judge’s personal demand for action. By failing to seek an administrative report before invoking Section 4, the Sessions Judge bypassed mandatory safeguards designed to protect public servants from malicious prosecutions.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a firm reminder of the boundaries of judicial authority: * "The manner in which the impugned orders are passed prima facie would probabilise the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions." * "Having regard to the nature of the complaints... registration of FIRs thereafter, passing of the externment order immediately, this Court is of the view that the order of externment... is totally unwarranted." * "The Court cannot direct that a particular person should be arrested." * "Unless there is a definite recommendation on the administrative side or a positive finding... the proceedings cannot be automatically initiated as a matter of right."

A Future-Looking Mandate

Ultimately, the Court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions, setting aside both the externment and remand orders. The DSP, M. Sankar Ganesh, was ordered to be released immediately.

Beyond the immediate relief granted to the petitioners, the High Court recognized the gravity of the allegations involving WhatsApp correspondence and alleged coercion of police officials. The Registrar (Vigilance) has been ordered to conduct an independent probe into the Sessions Judge’s conduct, with a report due before the High Court on September 23, 2025. This case serves as a stark warning that judicial authority is not absolute and must operate strictly within the bounds of due process.