# DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2017] 6 S.C.R. 881
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2017-04-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 5227of2017
- **Bench:** Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-t-p-senkumar-ips-v-union-of-india-ors-32033
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

A
B
Kera/a Police Act, 2011 - s. 97 - Transfer of State· Police Chief ,
appellant - Before completion of mandated ininimum ·tenure of two
C
years for the State Police Chief - On ground that he caused "serious
public dissarisfaction about efficiency of police"- Whether such
transfer/displacement justified in law - State Government contended
that only a prima facie satisfaction of the Government was required
to transfer the appellant due to his conduct subsequent to an incident
of murder and a temple tragedy, which resulted in nuri1ber of deaths
D
and injuries to many - It was alleged that appellant failed to take
action against the errant police officersfor the temple tragedy and
also failed to provide adequate response to the incident of murder
- Held: There is no material on record except the view that there .
was dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of · E
the police - It is not enough to merely contend that the State
Government was subjeetively satisfied that the appellant ought to
.be transferred out as the State Police Chief - This make-believe
prima facie satisfaction by itself cannot take out judicial review of
administrative action in the garb of subjective satisfaction ° of the
State Government - The removal or displacement of any senior level
F
officer from a tenure appointment must be for compelling reasons
and must be justified by the concerned authority, if called upon to
do so, on material that can be objectively tested - Significantly,
appellant was not found blameworthy in any manner whatsoever, it
was only the three errant police officers who were found at fault -
G
No justification to conclude that the appellant alone deserved to be .
acted against only because he supported his subordinates - Appellant
has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with - He was displaced
from the post of the State Police Chief summarily and without
reasonable cause - State Government directed to reinstate him as
881
H
882
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 6 S.C.R.
the State Police Chief - Service Law - Transfer - In case of tenure
appointment - Administrative Law - Judicial review.
Administrative Law - Statutory Authority - Order passed by
Chief Minister to replace the State Police Chief - On ground of
unsatisfactory leadership of appellant leading to serious
dissatisfaction among general public ~ State Police Chief-appellant
challenged the order - State in a detailed counter affidavit further
alleged that appellant attempted to interfere in the investigation of
Temple tragedy - Held: Validity of an order passed in exercise of
statutory power on certain grounds. must be judged by the reasons
mentioned in the order - Those reasons cannot be supplemented by
other reasons through affidavit or otherwise.
Constitution of India -Art.32 rlw. Art. 142 -Power of Supreme
Court to issue necessary directions to fill the vacuum till the
legislation steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its
role - Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts and the record of the present case
indicate that the Temple tragedy and the murder of a dalit girl
were not the flash points necessitating the transfer of the
appellant. The reason for his transfer was his conduct post the
Temple tragedy in not taking action against the errant police
officers (but supporting them) and in apportioning a part of the
blame on the district administration. The reference to the Jisha
murder case was an attempt at padding up the reason while the
reference to the alleged interference in the investigations by the
CB-CID was a red herring or a ruse - the alleged interference
was not even in the contemplation of the Chief Minster. The
addition of the allegation of interference with the investigations
in the Temple tragedy is a further attempt in that direction - to
somehow or the other nail the appellant. (Para 87) (918-A-C)
2. Insofar as taking action against the errant police officers
for the Temple tragedy is concerne

## Text

_Characters 0–39,998 of 95,802. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39998 for what follows._

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 881
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5227of2017)
APRIL 24, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.)
A
B
Kera/a Police Act, 2011 - s. 97 - Transfer of State· Police Chief ,
appellant - Before completion of mandated ininimum ·tenure of two
C
years for the State Police Chief - On ground that he caused "serious
public dissarisfaction about efficiency of police"- Whether such
transfer/displacement justified in law - State Government contended
that only a prima facie satisfaction of the Government was required
to transfer the appellant due to his conduct subsequent to an incident
of murder and a temple tragedy, which resulted in nuri1ber of deaths
D
and injuries to many - It was alleged that appellant failed to take
action against the errant police officersfor the temple tragedy and
also failed to provide adequate response to the incident of murder
- Held: There is no material on record except the view that there .
was dissatisfaction among the general public on the efficiency of · E
the police - It is not enough to merely contend that the State
Government was subjeetively satisfied that the appellant ought to
.be transferred out as the State Police Chief - This make-believe
prima facie satisfaction by itself cannot take out judicial review of
administrative action in the garb of subjective satisfaction ° of the
State Government - The removal or displacement of any senior level
F
officer from a tenure appointment must be for compelling reasons
and must be justified by the concerned authority, if called upon to
do so, on material that can be objectively tested - Significantly,
appellant was not found blameworthy in any manner whatsoever, it
was only the three errant police officers who were found at fault -
G
No justification to conclude that the appellant alone deserved to be .
acted against only because he supported his subordinates - Appellant
has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with - He was displaced
from the post of the State Police Chief summarily and without
reasonable cause - State Government directed to reinstate him as
881
H
882
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2017] 6 S.C.R.
the State Police Chief - Service Law - Transfer - In case of tenure
appointment - Administrative Law - Judicial review.
Administrative Law - Statutory Authority - Order passed by
Chief Minister to replace the State Police Chief - On ground of
unsatisfactory leadership of appellant leading to serious
dissatisfaction among general public ~ State Police Chief-appellant
challenged the order - State in a detailed counter affidavit further
alleged that appellant attempted to interfere in the investigation of
Temple tragedy - Held: Validity of an order passed in exercise of
statutory power on certain grounds. must be judged by the reasons
mentioned in the order - Those reasons cannot be supplemented by
other reasons through affidavit or otherwise.
Constitution of India -Art.32 rlw. Art. 142 -Power of Supreme
Court to issue necessary directions to fill the vacuum till the
legislation steps in to cover the gap or the executive discharges its
role - Discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The facts and the record of the present case
indicate that the Temple tragedy and the murder of a dalit girl
were not the flash points necessitating the transfer of the
appellant. The reason for his transfer was his conduct post the
Temple tragedy in not taking action against the errant police
officers (but supporting them) and in apportioning a part of the
blame on the district administration. The reference to the Jisha
murder case was an attempt at padding up the reason while the
reference to the alleged interference in the investigations by the
CB-CID was a red herring or a ruse - the alleged interference
was not even in the contemplation of the Chief Minster. The
addition of the allegation of interference with the investigations
in the Temple tragedy is a further attempt in that direction - to
somehow or the other nail the appellant. (Para 87) (918-A-C)
2. Insofar as taking action against the errant police officers
for the Temple tragedy is concerned, the Chief Minister of the
State also took no action for more than a month after the Note
was put up by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home). The Chief
Minister did not take any action in spite of the Note pinpointing
the three errant police officers against whom action was required
DR. T.P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
883
to be taken. It is difficult to hazard a guess why no action was A
taken. But in any event, the fact of the matter is that a suo motu
writ petition concerning the incident and its aftermath was pending
in the Kerala High Court, a judicial commission chaired a former
Judge of the Kerala High Court was appointed by the State
Government and investigations had been referred to the CBCID in this regard. Surely appellant cannot alone be pre-judged
and blamed for this state of affairs. [Para 88) [918-D-E)
3. While it is true that a major part of the blame must rest
on the police force at the ground level, the district administration
perhaps cannot be completely absolved of its responsibility in
B
c
the enormous tragedy that took place, but this is ultimately an
issue that may have to be decided by the High Court or by the
judicial commission or by the CB-CID. In any event, this can
hardly be any justification for coming to the conclusion that the
appellant alone deserved to be acted against only because he
supported his subordinates, while seeking to apportion a part of D
the blame on the district administration. [Para 89) [918-G-H)
4. Similarly, as far as the murder case is concerned, the
State Police Chief cannot alone be blamed for any lapse in
investigation or any delay in apprehending the accused. This is
more so considering the fact that a Special Investigating Team
E
had been appointed consisting of 28 officers to investigate the
Jisha murder case. The appellant was not the investigating officer
in the matter. [Para 90) [919-A-B)
5. Oblique motives are attributed to the appellant for
recommending the posting of a member of the Special
Investigating Team as Assistant Commissioner of Police, so that
he is under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Police, is a
little far-fetched. The appellant had nothing to fear in the
. investigations by the CB-CID since he was not involved in the
ground level arrangement in the Temple in question. It cannot
F
be said that the recommended officer was indispensable to the G
Special Investigating Team even if the Additional Director General
of Police (Crimes) may have objected to his transfer. It is being
assumed that even though the appellant was completely absolved
of any lapse in respect of the Puttingal Temple tragedy, he wanted
to interfere with the investigation for no apparent reason except
H
884
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 6 S.C.R.
A
perhaps to benefit the Commissioner of Police, for no apparent
reason. There is no evidence or material to arrive at any such
conclusive opinion. [Para 91] [919-D-G]
6. The State Government is right in submitting that it is
only a prima facie satisfaction that is to be arrived at by the State
B Government that the general public is dissatisfied with the
efficiency of the police so as to enable a .shifting out of the State
Police Chief. However, that prima facie satisfaction must be
based on some cogent and rational material. Nothing has been
placed in this regard except the view that there was dissatisfaction
among the general public on the efficiency of the police. Mere
C
repetition of the provisions of Section 97(2)(e) of the Act is not
sufficient - there must be some material on reco.rd (other than a
newspaper report) but nothing has been pointed out during the
course of submissions. It is not enough to merely contend that
the State Government was subjectively satisfied that the appellant
0
ought to be transferred out as the State Police Chief. [Para 92]
[919-H; 920-A-B]
E
7. The subjective satisfaction of the State Government must.
be based on some credible material, which this Court might not
analyze but which can certainly be looked into. Having looked
into the record there is no material adverse to the interests of
the appellant ex·cept an expression of opinion and views formed,
as far as he is concerned. This make-believe prima facie
satisfaction by itself cannot take out judicial revie~ of
administrative action in the garb of subjective satisfaction of the.
State Government. [Para 93] [920-C]
F
8. The appellant's displacement from the post of State Police
Chief in Kerala before the expiry of his tenure of two years was
not justified in law. The removal or displacement or transfer out
of an officer from a sensitive tenure post requires serious
consideration and good reasons that can be tested so that the
G officer is not dealt with as a pawn in a game. Unfortunately, the
somewhat exacting standards are absent in the present case and
the appellant was displaced from the post of State Police Chief
summarily and without reasonable cause.[Para 5][886-G-H;
887-A]
E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3 :
H
[1974] 2 SCR 348 - distinguished.
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF. INDIA & ORS:
885
Citizens for Justice & Peace v. State of Gujarat (2009)
A
11 SCC 213 : [2009] 1SCR190 - held inapplicable.
M.A. Rasheed v. State of Kera/a (1974) 2 SCC 687:
[1975] 2 SCR 96 - relied on.
Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2006)
8 SCC 1 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 473; Vishaka v. State
of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241: [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR
404; Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 :
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595; Commissioner of Police v.
Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16: [1952] SCR 135;
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
1978 (1) SCC 405 : [1978] 2 SCR 272 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006) 6 Suppl. SCR 473
referred to
Para6
[1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404
referred to ·
Para9
[1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595
referred to ·
Para-9
[1974] 2 SCR 348
distinguished
Para 66
(2009] 1 SCR 190
held inapplicable
Para 68
[1975] 2 SCR 96
relied on
Para 79
(1952] SCR 135
referred to
Para 85
[1978] 2 SCR 272
referred to
Para 86
B
c
D
E
F
CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5227 .
of2017.
·
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.20 I 7 of the High Court
ofKerala at Emakulam in OP (CAT) No. 205 of2016.
Dushyant A. Dave, Sr. Adv, Prashant Bhushan, Haris Beeran,
G
Mushtaq Salim, Usman Khan, Dev Praksah, Radha Shyam Jena, Advs.
for the Appellant.
·
Harish N. Salve, R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advs, G. Prakash,
Ms. Beena Prakash, Ms. Priyanka Prakash, Jishnu M. L, Manu Srinath,
K: L. Janjani, Jayant Mohan, B. Krishna Prasad, A1j? K. Joseph,
H
886
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 6 S.C.R.
A
Mrs. Shelna K, Yashraj, Advs. forthe Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADAN B. LOKUR, J. I. The appellant - Dr. T.P. Sen.kumar
- is said to be an outstanding officer in the Indian Police Service and in
view of his meritorious record and service, he was appointed as the
B
Director General of Police & Head of Police Force (the State Police
Chief) in terms of Section 18 of The Kera la Police Act, 2011 (for short
"the Act") on 22"d May, 2015.
2. Section 97 of the Act mandates that the State Government
C
shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for the State Police Chief ..
However, the State Police Chief could be transferred out before
completion of the tenure if the State Government is primafacie satisfied
that it is necessary to do so, on certain grounds specified in sub-section •
(2) of Section 97 of the Act. We are concerned with clause ( e) thereof
relating to causing "serious dissatisfaction in the general public about
D
efficiency of police in his jurisdiction."
E
F
3. Ordinarily therefore, the appellant's tenure as State Police Chief
should have continued till 21" May, 2017 and even thereafter till his
superannuation sometime in June, 2017. However, the tenure was cut
short and he was transferred out as Chairman and Managing Director
of the Kerala Police Housing and Construction Corporation Ltd. on State
deputation basis by an order dated I" June, 2016.
4. The appellant challenged his displacement by fit ing a petition in
the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed. He then
preferred a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging the order
of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Division Bench hearing the
writ petition dismissed it by the impugned judgment and order dated 25'"
January, 2017. It is under these circumstances that the appellant is now
before us.
G
5. The question for our consideration is whether the appellant's
displacement from the post of State Police Chief in Kerala before the
expiry of his tenure of two years was justified in law. In our opinion, the
answer is in the negative. The removal or displacement or transfer out
of an officer from a sensitive tenure post requires serious consideration
and good reasons that can be tested so that the officer is not dealt with
H
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR JPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
. 887
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
as a pawn in a game. Unfortunately, the somewhat exacting standards
A
are absent in the present case and the appellant was displaced from the
post gf State Police Chief summarily and without reasonable cause.
Prakash Singh's case
6. Before detailing the controversy before us it is necessary to
B
refer to the decision of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of
India and Ors. 1 In that case, this Court dealt with the issue of police
reforms in the context of the far-reaching changes that had taken place
in the country after the enactment of the Indian.Police Act, 1861. It was
noted that no comprehensive review had been undertaken in this regard
at the national level and therefore, the Government oflndia appointed a
C
National Police Commission on 1 Slh November, 1977 which recommended
significant police reforms. It was also noted that subsequently, there
were other half a dozen reports on the same or similar subject but no
substantive reforms were brought about.
7. In the course of its judgment, this Court referred to a research
paper titled "Political and Administrative Manipulation of the Police"
published in 1979 by the Bureau of Police Research and Development.
The research paper contained a caution to the effect that excessive
control by the political executive and its principal advisers over the police
had the inherent danger of making the police a tool for subverting the
process of law, promoting the growth of authoritarianism and shaking
the very foundations of democracy. We may add that one of the findings
in the research paper is "The present predicament of Police is.that they
have been exposed to a two pronged pressure vertically from the
Administration and laterally from the politicians."2 With these two
pressures, the independent functioning of the police can and sometimes
does get compromised at the hands of very important persons and those
claiming proximity to very important persons.
8. Keeping this and other material in mind, including the fact that
commitment, devotion and accountability of the police has to be only to
D
E
F
the rule of law, this Court issued certain directions in exercise of powers
G
under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution for doing
complete justice in any cause or matter. This Court took the view that
the directions and guidelines ought to be observed in the absence of
1 (2006) s sec 1
'Research Studies on Police and Prison Issues (1970-2009) [Compendium] published
by the Bureau of Police Research and Training [page 81]
H
·--~
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 6 S.C.R.
A
legislation and implemented till the Legislatures pass appropriate
legislations.
a·
c
D
9. Resort to Article 32 read with Article 142 of the-Constitution in
such situations was in continuation of similar views expressed in Vishaka
v. State of Rajasthan3 wherein this Court held in paragraph 16 of the
Report that in the absence of enacted law,
" ...... to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human
right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment
and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment at
workplaces, we lay down the guidelines and norms specified
hereinafter for due observance at alt workplaces or other
· institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. This is
done in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of the
Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights and it is
further emphasised that this would be treated as the law declared
by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution."
A similar view was taken by this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union
of Indifil wherein this Court held in paragraph 49 of the Report as
·follows:
"There are ample powers conferred by Article 32 read with Article
E _
142 to make orders which have the effect of law by virtue of
Article 141 and there is mandate to all authorities to act in aid of
the orders of this Court as provided in Article 144 of the
Constitution. In a catena of decisions of this Court, this power has
been recognised and exercised, if need be, by issuing necessary
directions to fill the vacuum till such time the legislature steps in to
F
cover the gap or the executive discharges its role ......... It is
essential and indeed the constitutional obligation of this Court under
the aforesaid provisions to issue the necessary directions in this
behalf. We now consider formulation of the needed directions in
the performance of this obligation. The directions issued herein
G
for strict compliance are to operate till such time as they are
replaced by suitable legislation in this behalf."
10. One of the more significant directions given by this Court
pertains to the establishment of a State Security Commission. It was
directed that it should be ensured that the State Government does not
H
3(1997)6SCC241
•<I 998) 1 sec 226
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR JPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
. [MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
exercise unwarranted influence or pressure on the State Police and,
therefore, a watchdog body called the State Security Commission should
be constituted with some official members as well as some non-official
members who should be chosen in such a manner that they are able to
function independent of government control. It was directed that the
recommendations of the State Security Commission shall be binding on
the State Government. Incidentally, on our asking we ~ere informed by
learned counsel for the State Government· that as of now, the State
Security Commission does not have any independent member.
11. Another significant direction given was that the State
Government shall select the Director General of Police of the State
from amongst the three senior-most empanelled officers keeping in mind
their length of service, very good record and range of experience for
heading the police force. It was directed that the Director General of
Police should have a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective
of his date of superannuation. It was further directed that the Director
General of Police may be relieved of responsibilities by the State
Government acting in consultation with the State Security Commission
on certain specified grounds. All these directions were given by this
Court so as to insulate the police from external pressures and maintain
the rule of law and not of persons.
The State legislation
e
12. A few years after the decision in Prakash Singh, the Kerala
Legislature enacted the Kerala Police Act, 20 I I.
889
A
8
c
D
E
13. Section 18 of the Act provides for a State Police Chief vested
with the administration, supervision, direction and control of the police
throughout the State, subject to the control of the State Government.
F
The State Police Chief should have tbe ability to lead the police force of
the State and should be selected taking this into account as well as the
overall history of service, professional knowledge and experience.
Section ·18 of the Act reads as follows:
"18. State Police Chief - (!)The administration, supervision,
G
direction and control of the Police throughout the State shall, subject
to the control of the Go;vernment, be vested in an officer designated
as the State Police Chief.
(2) The State Police Chief shall be appointed by the Government
H
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 6 S.C.R.
A
from among those officers of the State Cadre of the Indian Police
Service who have already been promoted to the rank of Director
General of Police, taking into account the ability to lead the Police
Force of the State, the overall history of service, professional
knowledge and experience:
B
Provided that where in a case or disciplinary proceedings, for and
on behalf of the State a charge has been given or is pending against
. an officer before any Court or Tribunal or departmental agency,
that officer shall not be appointed as the State Police Chief.
(3) Any person who performs any functions of the police in the
C
State ofKerala in exercise of the powers under this Act shall be
officers subordinate to the State Police Chief.
D
E
F
G
H
(4) Such number of officers of different ranks as may be decided
by the Government from time to time shall assist the State Pol ice
Chief.
(5) No officer senior to the State Police Chief shall be appointed
in the Kerala Police."
14. Section 24 of the Act provides for the constitution of the State
Security Commission for discharging certain functions as mentioned in
Section 25 of the Act. The State Security Commission consists of the
Minister in-charge of Home Department who shall be the Chairperson;
the Minister in-charge of Law; the Leader of Opposition; a retired Judge
of the High Court nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court of
Kera la; the Chief Secretary; the Secretary to State Government in the
Home Department and the State Police Chief as ex-officio members
and three non-official members of eminence nominated by the Governor
of the State, one of the non-official members being a woman. In other
words, the State Security Commission is expected to be a relatively
independent body, but is not truly so in view of other provisions in the
Act.
15. The functions of the State Security Commission as given in
Section 25 of the Act read as follows:
"25. Functions of the Commission. -(I) The Commission shall
have the following functions, namely:-
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
891
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
(a) to frame general policy guidelines for the functioning of the
A
Police in the State;
(b) to issue directions for the implementation of crime prevention
tasks and service oriented activities of the Police;
(c) to evaluate, from time to time, the performance of the Police
in the State in general;
(d) to prepare an annual report of the activities of the Commission
and submit it to the Government; and
( e) to prepare the guidelines for the changes to be carried out,
B
from time to time, in the State Police; and
c
(t) to discharge such other functions as may be assigned to it by
the Government.
(2) The report submitted by the Commission under clause (d) of
sub-section (1) shall, on receipt, be placed before the Legislative
Assembly.
(3) No Act or Proceedings of the Commission shall be deemed
to be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the Commission
at the time any such Act or Proceedings was done or issued.
(4) Notwithstanding any guidelines or directions issued by the
Commission, the Government may lawfully issue such directions
as it deems necessary on any matter, if the situation so warrants,
to meet any emergency.
(5) The directions of the Commission shall be binding on the
Police Department:
Provided that the Government may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, fully or partially, reject or modify any recommendation or
direction of the Commission."
16. With regard to the minimum tenure of police officers including
the State Police Chief, Section 97 of the Act provides as follows:
"97. Minimum tenure of police officers.- (1) The Government
shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for police officers
posted as State Police Chief, Inspectors General in charge of
Ranges, Superintendents of Police or Commissioners in charge
of Police Districts and State House Officers:
D
E
F
G
H
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 6 S.C.R.
A
Provided that this tenure shall not be applicable in cases of
superannuation, promotion, reversion, suspension, leave, etc.
(2) The Government or the appointing authority may, without
prejudice to the right to initiate any legal or departmental action
transfer any police officer before completing the normal tenure
B
of two years, on being satisfied prime facie that it is necessary to
do so on any of the following grounds stated in (a) to (t) namely:-
c
D
E
F
G
H
( a) the officer is subjected to disciplinary action;
(b) it is found prima facie on investigation that the officer is involved
in a corrupt practice or in a criminal offence involving proclivity
for violence or moral turpitude;
( c) the officer is physically or mentally incapable of discharging
his duties;
( d) a superior officer evaluating the work of an officer, reports, in
writing, that the officer is not carrying out his duties efficiently;
(e) cause serious dissatisfaction in the general public about
efficiency of police in his jurisdiction;
(t) the officer requests, in writing, for a transfer from the place
where he is working."
17. It will be seen from the above that some of the directions
given by this Court were not accepted by the Kerala Legislature in
enacting the Act. Among these was the direction regarding the binding
nature of the recommendations of the State Security Commission and
the direction relating to the Director General of Police or the State Police
Chief being relieved of responsibilities by the State Government acting
in consultation with the State Security Commission. Consequently, in the
selection or removal of the Director General of Police or the State Police
Chief, the State Security Commission has no role to play under the Act.
In a sense therefore, an important element in the spirit of the judgment
of this Court was not accepted by the Kerala Legislature, namely that of
making the State Police Chief accountable only to the rule of law nor did
the Kerala Legislature accept the warning of the Bureau of Police
Research and Development against excessive control over the police by
the political executive and its principal advisers.
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
893
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
18. In this background, what falls for our consideration is whether
A
the State Police Chief,can be removed from his tenure posting on a
primafacie opinion that he or she caused "serious dissatisfaction in the
general public about efficiency of police in his jurisdiction" and what are
the restrictions and constraints in arriving at such a prima facie
conclusion.
Puttingal Temple Tragedy and the Note of 13•• April, 2016
19. The appellant was given a tenure appointment as the State
Police Chief on 22"d May, 2015 in accordance with Section 18 and Section
97 of the Act. It appears that his tenure did not involve any controversy
B
until the night of91• April, 2016.
c
20. Very briefly, on 9•• April, 2016 a festival called 'Meena Bharani
Utsavam' was celebrated in district Kollam. As a part of the celebrations,
the Temple Administration Committee sought permission to have a
fireworks display in the form of a competition at the Puttingal Devi
Temple. Permission to hold such a competition was declined by the
D
District Administration. An application was then made by the Temple
Administration Committee to hold a fireworks display (non-competitive)
but even this was declined by the District Administration. However, the
Temple Administration Committee nevertheless went ahead with a
fireworks display. Late into the night (early morning of 101• April) an
extremely unfortunate tragedy occurred resulting in the stock of fireworks
catching a spark. This resulted in an explosion and the death of more
than 100 persons and injuries to m·ore than 400 persons.
E
21. The facts leading up to the tragedy are summarized in a Note
dated 13•• April, 2016 by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) with
regard to what is now known as the Puttingal Temple tragedy. The
F
Note of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) is comprehensive and is
based on reports received from:
(I) State Police Chiefand Director General of Pol-ice (appellant)
(2) Commandant General Fire Police
G
(3) Director, State Intelligence
(4) Additional Director General of Police, Crimes
(5) District Collector and District Magistrate, Kollam
H
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 6 S.C.R.
A
(6) Commissioner of Police, Kollam City
B
c
In other words, the Note is based on inputs received from all
relevant sources and is also based on contemporaneous information.
22. The Note records that the Temple Administration Committee
sought permission for a display of fireworks but this was declined by an
order dated 8'h April, 2016 by the Additional District Magistrate, Kollam.
The officer declined to grant any permission either for display of fireworks
or competitive fireworks. While declining to grant permission, the
Additional District Magistrate, Kollam specifically instructed the
Commissioner of Police, Kollam City to ensure that no violation of the
order takes place.
23. The Circle Inspector of Police, Paravur was present at the
site of display of fireworks and the tragic incident. It was reported that
the officer "repeatedly asked the temple authorities to stop the display
of fireworks" but obviously to no effect. It appears that before the
D
fireworks display started, the temple authorities informed the Circle
Inspector of Police that a sanction order from the Additional District
Magistrate was on the way but he failed to verify this from the District
Magistrate.
24. From the report of the Director, State Intelligence Bureau, it
E
appears that the District Police Chief (perhaps the Commissioner of
Police) Kollam City was alerted on 31'' March, 2016 for taking steps
concerning issues relating to the temple festival.
F
G
H
25. On 9th April, 2016 at about 12.30 p.m. a meeting was held in
the chambers of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Koll am City where
the temple authorities of Puttingal Devi temple and police officers
participated. The Deputy Commissioner of Police gave instructions that
the fireworks display could be conducted only after getting a proper
license or permission from the Additional District Magistrate. The temple
authorities apparently assured that the fireworks display would be
conducted only in accordance with law.
26. The Note records several conclusions, some of the more
important ones as far as we are concerned are as follows:
(a) Despite the "'.arning given as early as on 31" March, 2016
there was no pro-active planning [by the police] to avert the
tragedy. The Additional District Magistrate had passed an order
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
895
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.]
on 81h April, 2016 prohibiting the display of fireworks and the
A
Commissioner of Police had received this order. The Deputy
Commissioner of Police held a meeting in his chamber on 91h April,
2016 wherein he is said to have told the temple authorities to get
an order from the Additional District Magistrate for permitting
the fireworks display after ensuring that there would be no
B
competition. It was concluded that apparently the Deputy
Commissioner of Police was appeasing the temple authorities
rather than trying to implement the order of the Additional District
Magistrate.
(b) The Circle Inspector of Police did not inform any officer senior
to him in the chain of command when the situation was going out
C
of control. As far as the Commissioner of Police is concerned, he
admitted that he got information of the tragedy only when it had
struck (and not when the fireworks display started).
(c) The fireworks display started at about 11.30 p.m. on 91h April,
2016 but the Circle Inspector of Police and other officers remained
D
mute witnesses to a violation of the order of the Additional District
Magistrate.
It was then concluded:
"The conclusion is therefore inescapable that the field officers
have failed in implementing the order of the District Magistrate;
in following up the field situation on a minute to minute basis so
that this tragedy could have been averted.
There is absolute dereliction of duty and abdication of responsibility
on the part of the ACP, Chathanur and DCP, Kollam City in not
effectively monitoring the situation in the temple in the night of9'h
April, 2016, resulting in a tragedy claiming more than 110 human
lives.
In the circumstances, it is not desirable to keep the three officers
E
F
- Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, Assistant Commissioner
G
of Police, Chathanur and Circle Inspector of Police, Paravur - in
their present postings any longer. They should be kept out of their
field postings pending disciplinary proceedings for major penalty.
Their suspension is warranted in public interest."
H
896
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 6 S.C.R.
27. The Note dated i3'h April, 2016 appears to have been placed
before the Chief Minister of the State on 14'h April, 2016 but he did not
pass any order thereon and the file was returned only after the elections
to the Legislative Assembly were over in May 2016. However, what is
of significance, as far as the present appeal is concerned, is that the
appellant was not found blameworthy in any manner whatsoever - it is
only the three police officers at the field level in Kollam City, Chathanur
and Paravur who were found to be at fault and their suspension and
transfer was recommended.
28. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the results of the elections
to the Kerala Legislative Assembly were declared on 19'h May, 2016
C and the political party of the incumbent Chief Minister did not secure a
majority. Consequently, the present government with a different Chief
Minister assumed office on 2S'h May, 2016. It seems that the concerned
file was returned only around this time.
D
Suo motu proceedings in the High Court
29. In the meanwhile, soon after the Puttingal Temple tragedy,
the Kerala High Court took notice of the tragedy and registered a suo
motu writ petition being W.P. (C) No.14978of2016. In this writ petition,
an affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary of the State on 13'h Apri I,
· 2016. The affidavit gives the sequence of events which is more or less
E
the same as in the Note dated 1 J'h April, 2016. With regard to the role of
the police, he stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit as follows:
"Subsequently on 09.04.2016, the police made all bandobust
arrangements for the conduct of the festival and there was a
scheme prepared by the police for crowd management as well to
F
prevent commission of offences. In the night of 09.04.2016
thousands of people gathered at the temple to watch the fire works
display. The police officials as well as the Tahsildar, Kollam were
present at the temple premises. The Circle Inspector of Police,
Paravoor who was on duty in the temple compound, noticing the
G
preparation made by the organizers for the fire works display
after the lowering of the festival flag from the flag mast at 9.30
p.m. asked the office bearers of the Temple Committee to show
the order granting permission of the same. They said that sanction
had been obtained from the Additional District Magistrate and
somebody would be bringing it to the spot. In the meanwhile it
H
DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
897
[MADAN B. LOKUR, J.)
was announced through the public address system that the
A
committee had permission to conduct display of fire works
(Vedikkettu) from the Additional District Magistrate and there
would be a display of fire words. The Circle Inspector of Police
asked to wait until the permit was actually shown to him. Instead,
the temple authorities violating the law, def),ing the lawful direction
of the authorities started to ignite the fire works abruptly. When
the fire works (Vedikkettu) started huge crowd rushed forward
to view it. All officials including the Circle Inspector of Police
immediately went to the ground for managing the crowd, since
there was surge of people. It is submitted that around 03.00 a.m.
B
on I 0.04.2016 some spark from the fire works fell inside the fire
C
works shed (Kambappura) and resulting in explosion causing heavy
casualties."
30. In his affidavit, the Chief Secretary also mentioned that a
judicial commission has been set up, headed by a former Judge of the
Kerala High Court, to look into all aspects of the Puttingal Temple tragedy.
It was noted that investigation into the crime, which resulted in the tragedy
was handed over to the CB-CID and a team headed by the Additional
Director General of Police (Crime) was constituted. We were told that
the investigation was transferred to the CB-CID on 11th April, 2016. It
appears that the writ petition is still pending disposal and the judicial
commission has not yet given its report.
31. Significantly, even the Chief Secretary did not make any adverse
comment against the appellant.
Jisha Murder case
32. On 281h April, 2016 another terrible incident occurred, namely,
the brutal murder of a young Dalit girl Jisha within the jurisdiction of the
Kuruppumpady police station. On 3'd May, 2016 the appellant sent a
communication to the Additional Chief Secretary (N/C) giving the details
of the crime and the initial investigation. The communication reads as
follows:
"Crime No. 909/16 u/s 449, 302 !PC of Kuruppumpady Police
Station was registered at 9.30 p.m. on 28.04.2016 on the basis of
the statement given by one Anas, Panchayat Member there. This
was related to the murder of Jisha, aged 30/2016 years who was
found murdered in her house on the bank of a canal. Within a
D
E
F
G
H
898
A
B
c
D
E
F
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017) 6 S.C.R.
short time, District Police Chief, Emakulam Rural also reached
the spot and the entire team started investigation. The deceased
was staying with her mother Smt. Rajeswari. It is known that,
Jisha's father belongs to SC community and Smt. Rajeswari
belongs to OBC community. All scientific investigation procedures
are adopted in this case. IGP Ernakulam Range, who had
experience of working in CBI for 7 years is personally supervising
the investigation from 29.04.2016 onwards. They have formed a
· good investigation team with DySP, Perumbavoor as Investigating
Officer. Efforts are taken to identify the accused through scientific
methods.
The post-mortem report of the deceased has revealed that the
deceased had been attacked with more than one weapon. Brutality
of the attack is also noticed. The time of the death is estimated to
be between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. on 28.04.2016. The
investigation is in full swing by one of the best team available in
the state. It is expected that the accused can be clearly found out
within a short time."
A Special Investigation Team consisting of 28 officers has since
been constituted to investigate and prosecute the crime. For the present,
it is not advisable to say anything more on this subject.
Notes of 26'h May, 2016 and the appellant's transfer
33. Other than the terrible murder ofJisha nothing of significance
seems to have transpired between J3Lh April, 2016 and 26'" May, 2016
or at least the official files do not reveal anything of significance.
However, elections to the Legislative Assembly had intervened in the
meantime and another Government assumed office.
34. On 26'" May, 2016 the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) put
up two Notes to the (recently elected) Chief Minister. The first Note
suggests (by way of an example) that it was prompted by a report in the
New Indian Express of 18'" April, 2016 wherein the appellant expressed
the view that the police alone cannot be blamed for the Puttingal Temple
G
tragedy.