Back
: Police, Professionals Must Wear Uniform, Maintain Discipline When Testifying as Court Witnesses
In a ruling that reinforces the , the has declared that police officers, medical practitioners, and all professionals appearing as witnesses in court must attend in the and uphold absolute integrity and discipline. A division bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice N. Senthilkumar set aside a single judge’s order that had overturned a disciplinary punishment against a policeman, holding that in departmental inquiries, a medical is sufficient to prove even without confirmatory blood or urine tests.
A Drunken Appearance Before the Magistrate
The case involved a Special Sub‑Inspector of Police, V. Arumuram, who appeared before the , on to give evidence in a criminal trial. The Magistrate immediately noticed that the officer reeked of alcohol, his speech lacked coherence, and he seemed intoxicated. The Magistrate directed a medical examination, and an Office Assistant along with a Sub‑Inspector accompanied Arumuram. The Medical Officer issued a after noting the smell of alcohol; however, no blood or urine samples were taken. Arumuram, then in a drunken stupor, raised no objection to the examination.
The Magistrate sent a complaint through the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore. The incident hit the local press the next day, bringing disrepute to the police force. were initiated under the . After a full enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the of from service . On appeal, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Villupuram Range, showed leniency and reduced the punishment to . The revision to the Director General of Police failed, and the modified penalty became final.
The Single Judge’s Interference
Four years later, in , Arumuram filed a challenging the modified punishment. The single judge allowed the petition solely on the ground that urine and blood tests had not been conducted to establish drunkenness. The police department, through its top officials – the Director General of Police, the Deputy Inspector General, and the Superintendent of Police – challenged this order in a .
Two
The government counsel argued that the Medical Officer’s certificate, obtained immediately after the court episode, was credible evidence enough for a . The respondent, on the other hand, insisted that without scientific tests, drunkenness could not be proved. The division bench emphatically distinguished the required in and . It observed:
“To convict a person under the criminal law, the prosecution is required to establish the charge by . However, no such strict proof is required to punish a Government employee under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. is sufficient.”
The court noted that Ex‑P.6, the , was unchallenged and that the police officer had voluntarily submitted to the medical examination without any protest. Further, the incident occurred right under the nose of the Judicial Magistrate, whose complaint provided direct evidence. The bench held that the single judge had erroneously applied a standard meant for and thus set aside the , restoring the punishment of increment postponement.
The Courtroom Must Not Be Defiled
While adjudicating the appeal, the took a stern view of the larger problem of indiscipline among official witnesses. It noted that police personnel were frequently found not wearing proper uniform and failing to maintain while deposing in courts. The judgment declared:
“A Police Officer, a Medical Practitioner, or any other Professional, while appearing before the Courts to depose as a witness, has to attend the Courts in the , wherever applicable, and to maintain while deposing evidence before the Courts.”
The court also made it clear that any inside a – be it drunkenness or unbecoming behaviour – “cannot, under any circumstances, be tolerated.” Judicial officers were called upon to immediately report such lapses to the competent authorities for initiation of disciplinary and other legal steps.
Duty to Issue a Circular
Acting on these observations, the bench directed the Director General of Police, Chennai , to issue a circular within four weeks mandating that all police personnel attending courts as witnesses must wear the proper uniform and maintain absolute integrity, failing which disciplinary action would follow. The Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court was instructed to communicate the circular to all courts across the State of Tamil Nadu so that Judicial Officers are aware of the new directive.
Final Order
The was allowed, and the dated was set aside. No costs were awarded. The judgment, with its twin emphasis on the standard of proof in and the imperative of courtroom , is expected to serve as a strong deterrent against indiscipline among official witnesses. For the police force, the message is unambiguous: the uniform is not just a cloth but a symbol of duty that must be honoured, especially within the precincts of justice.
