Police acting as executive magistrates: SC seeks reply from states on PIL

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Apr 17 2018 | 8:45 PM IST

The Supreme Court today said copies of the PIL, alleging that police officers are being appointed as special executive magistrates and they act as judges in certain cases, be served to all the states so as to enable them to file their response in the matter.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra directed that the copies to be served to them within a week and sought their replies within six weeks.

"Let a copy of this petition be served on the standing counsel for all the state respondents, so that the said states can file affidavit with regard to the position in vogue in those states," the bench, also comprising justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud, said.

The matter was posted for further hearing in the first week of July.

Earlier, on April 5, the bench had expressed surprise and asked as to how police officers can be allowed to perform the job of executive magistrates under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to deal with bail bonds from persons for ensuring law and order.

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

The PIL, filed by lawyer Aldanish Rein, alleged that police officers, whose role is to investigate, are being appointed as special executive magistrates and they act as judges in certain cases.

It was alleged that these executive magistrates are entrusted with the task to ensure 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 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, involved in cases relating to public scuffle or nuisance, promising to keep peace.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 17 2018 | 8:45 PM IST

Next Story