Madras HC closes contempt proceedings against police officials

Madras High Court closed suo motu contempt proceedings initiated by it against more than 20 Puducherry Police personnel for staging a dharna against a lower court judge over denial of bail to an SI in a bribery case, accepting their unconditional apology.
Warning the police force that such things should not happen in future, it also pulled up the Union Territory Government for setting up a Commission of Inquiry into the December 19, 2008 incident without consulting the High Court and quashed the GO appointing the commission.
First Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sathish K Agnihotri and Justice K K Sasidharan had on April 7 reserved orders on the suo motu proceedings after 22 police personnel appeared before it and an unconditional apology was tendered by the then SP N Sivadasan on behalf of the personnel and assured the Court that it will not happen in future.

The matter related to the dharna staged by some police personnel in the court verandah of the Puducherry Chief Judge after he rejected the bail plea of sub-inspector Sridhar, who was arrested by CBI under Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Chief Judge while granting bail to the second accused A Ambalavanan, an advocate, had rejected the bail application of the SI, triggering protest by the police personnel.
The incident was taken up suo motu by the High Court which appointed senior advocate Arvind P Dattar as the amicus curiae, who in his report submitted that it was an aberration and what happened was most unfortunate and wrong.

After perusing the report, the High Court had directed 23 involved police personnel to appear before it. Of them 22 police personnel appeared while a Home Guard jawan has quit and settled abroad.

Closing the contempt proceedings, the High Court, in its order, said, "We do not approve the unilateral action taken by the Government of Puducherry appointing a Commission of Inquiry."
The Judges held that since the incident took place inside the court premises, the state should have consulted the High Court before appointing the Commission of Inquiry.
"Since no such concurrence was taken for holding an enquiry with respect to the matter involving in the administration of Justice, we quash the Government order appointing Commission of Inquiry," the Judges observed.