Back
Rules Chairperson Alone Cannot Act for Police Complaints Authority
In a significant ruling on the composition of the , the has quashed initiated against a police officer, holding that an order passed solely by the Chairperson cannot be treated as an order of the Authority.
Justice Pankaj Purohit, hearing the of Kamal Kumar Lunthi, a Sub-Inspector, found that the of , was passed by the Chairperson alone, disregarding the other four members who were then appointed to the Authority.
The Backdrop: A Controversial Arrest
Lunthi, posted as Sub-Inspector In-charge at Lakhi Bagh Chowki, Dehradun in 2010, investigated an FIR (No. 196/2010) lodged against Bharat Bhushan Gupta and Naveen Nagar under . After recording statements and a site inspection, he arrested the accused on , and submitted a charge-sheet. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took of the case.
One of the accused, Bharat Bhushan Gupta, later complained to the , alleging an unconstitutional arrest. The Authority's Chairperson, without consulting other members, passed an order on , holding that was non-cognizable and bailable, and therefore the arrest was illegal. The Chairperson further directed disciplinary action against Lunthi.
A was subsequently issued to Lunthi on , leading him to challenge both orders before the High Court.
Arguments: All About the Authority's Composition
Petitioner's Contention: Counsel for Lunthi argued that under , the consists of a Chairperson and at least four other members. The bore only the Chairperson's signature, making it invalid. He relied on the co-ordinate Bench judgment in , which held that an order passed solely by the Chairperson is in the eyes of law.
Respondent's Defense: The respondent (the complainant) contended that the Act does not prescribe a minimum number of members or any quorum, and thus the Chairperson alone was competent to pass the order. They argued that five members are only a maximum, not a requirement.
Court's Legal Analysis: "Hard to Fathom" the Solo Decision
The High Court examined Sections 64 and 65 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, which clearly state:
64. The Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and maximum four other Members.
65. The Authority shall consist of maximum five members, with four independent members and one police officer superannuated not below the rank of Inspector General.
Crucially, a communication dated , from the State Government revealed that on the very date of the () , the Authority had five working members, including the Chairperson and four others. The Court noted:
“This Court is of the view that it is hard to fathom the reason as to why only the chairperson passed the .”
Rejecting the respondent's argument about the absence of a quorum, the Court observed:
“The argument of learned counsel for respondent No.4 regarding the fact that there is no quorum specified for functioning of the police complaints authority also holds no water as then what is the use of appointing 5 members in the complaints authority.”
The Court reiterated the principle from M/s Dasauni that when multiple members exist, the Chairperson alone cannot act for the Authority.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court set aside the orders on the sole ground of improper composition:
“Thus, the order passed by Chairperson alone cannot be said to be passed by the Authority. It is illegal and deserves to be quashed only on this sole ground.”
It further emphasized that the Authority must function collectively, and any order passed without the involvement of all members is void.
The Verdict: A Clean Slate for the Officer
Allowing the , the High Court quashed both the order dated , passed by the , and the consequential dated . The judgment underscores the importance of statutory composition in and provides a clear precedent that a solo act by the Chairperson, in the presence of other members, cannot bind the Authority.
