SC stays Karnataka HC order issuing NBW against state police chief

The Supreme Court Thursday stayed the Karnataka High Court order issuing non-bailable warrant (NBW) against the state police chief Praveen Sood for non-compliance of an order related to transfer of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The high court on February 18 issued the arrest warrant against the 1986-cadre IPS officer, appointed recently as the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG&IGP), after he failed to file response to the plea filed by DySP S S Kashi.

Kashi, who has allegedly been transferred 30 times in his 24-year-long career, had moved the high court against the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order holding his recent transfer to be valid.

The high court was irked over the fact that neither the DGP's office filed a reply on February 18 nor the police chief appeared during the day as directed by it.

It issued the NBW against the DGP and the arrest was to be effected by the Home Secretary to secure his presence on February 25.

In fast-paced developments, the Karnataka police chief on Thursday mentioned his plea for an urgent hearing against the HC order before a bench headed by Chief Justice S A Bobde.

The bench, also comprising Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant, was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that an "unsual order" has been passed by the high court against the top police officer of the state and it needed to be stayed urgently.

The court took up the appeal of the DGP after finishing day's work and stayed the operation of the high court order.

"It is submitted that in the Petitioner (DGP) herein has the highest respect for the High Court. In terms of the orders passed by the court, the Petitioner herein shall furnish all information as required by the High Court and shall render all assistance as called upon.

"However, it is humbly submitted that the impugned order directing the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the Petitioner was not justified or warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case," the plea said.

It said the DySP's plea had come before the high court for the first time on February 11 and on the next date of hearing, that is on February 18, an adjournment for a week was sought for filing the reply.

The high court, however, did not accept the adjournment request and "directed that the DGP shall personally appear before this court before 4.45 pm and shall explain the queries raised in the order dated February 11".

"It is further submitted that the High court had directed Police Authorities to submit an explanation as to transfers of the Petitioner over the entire 24 year service period, which took some time to gather and file in the form of the affidavit," the plea said.

The plea said that High Court failed to "even consider the fact that the Petitioner has just taken charge of the post of DGP and IGP...only in the Month of February and as such the Petitioner cannot be even remotely be held liable for any transfers of the Writ Petitioner (DySP) over the period of the last 24 years."