Police acting as executive magistrates: SC irked over non-filing of replies by states

The Supreme Court today took strong exception to almost all states and union territories not filing replies on a PIL alleging that police officers were being appointed as special executive magistrates who, at times, acted as judges.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed the states to file their replies before August 6, the next date of hearing, and warned that in case of non-compliance, the concerned home secretaries will have to appear in person before it.

On being informed that only Delhi had filed a reply, the bench said that a last opportunity was being given to all states.

The bench, also comprising Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, had on April 17 directed that the copies of the petition be served upon all 29 states and seven UTs for filing responses within six weeks.

Lawyer Aldanish Rein, who has filed the PIL in his personal capacity, has alleged that police officers, whose role is to investigate, were being appointed as special executive magistrates and they acted as judges in certain cases.

Earlier, the bench had expressed surprise and had asked how police officers were being allowed to perform the job of executive magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to deal with bail bonds from persons to ensure law and order.

The court had, however, considered the submission of Delhi Police that Section 21 of CrPC expressed the intention of the legislature that the police may be bestowed with the magisterial powers.

The PIL also alleged that these executive magistrates were entrusted with the task of ensuring peace and empowered to accept or reject bonds from people for maintaining law and order.

Rein, in his plea, cited an example from Delhi where an executive magistrate had refused to accept the bond given by a person in a case relating to public nuisance and was sent to judicial custody.

The plea has challenged the powers of executive magistrates under Chapter VII of the CrPC, especially the power under sections 107, 111 and 116, by which they allegedly arbitrarily reject bonds given by persons, mostly involved in cases relating to public scuffle or nuisance.