Activists, civil society groups oppose ex-IPS officer heading police watchdog in Haryana, cite SC ruling

The Act empowers the Police Complaints Authority to inquire into allegations of serious misconduct against police personnel, either suo motu or based on complaints received from victims, their representatives or the National or State Human Rights Commission, according to officials.

On Friday, the Haryana government appointed former IPS officer RC Mishra as Chairperson of the Authority and former IAS officer Lalit Siwach as a member, drawing sharp criticism from civil society groups arguing that the Authority, tasked with hearing complaints against police officers, must be led by someone from judicial background.

Seeking Governor Ashim Kumar Ghosh’s intervention, Punjab and Haryana High Court lawyer Hemant Kumar submitted a representation on Sunday, demanding the appointment of a retired high court or a Supreme Court judge as the chairman in line with the top court’s 2006 directive. In his letter, Kumar also highlighted the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s quashing of the appointment of former IAS officer Pradeep Mehra as the chairperson of the Chandigarh Police Complaints Authority on similar grounds in 2015.

Opposing Mishra’s appointment, another high court lawyer, HC Arora, who had challenged Mehra’s appointment, said, “Only a retired judge has to be appointed in accordance with the 2006 SC judgment in Prakash Singh versus Union of India case in letter and spirit.”

Rohtak-based RTI activist Subhash also objected to Mishra’s appointment. “In 2021, the Haryana government appointed a former IAS officer to head the Authority; but this time, the government moved one step ahead and appointed an IPS officer contrary to the spirit of the 2006 SC ruling.”

However, a senior officer of the Haryana government, who is associated with the affairs of the State Police Complaints Authority, defended the appointment. “Certainly, the 2006 Supreme Court order had mentioned that ‘the Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of a high court or the Supreme Court,’ but later, the states introduced their legislation. Likewise, the Haryana Police Act, 2007, doesn’t bar the appointment of an IPS officer,” the officer said.

The official appointment order issued by the office of Haryana Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Sumita Misra reads: “In pursuance of provisions contained in… Haryana Police Act, 2007 (25 of 2008), amended from time to time, read with Rule-3 of Haryana Police (Appointment of Chairperson and Members of Complaint Authorities) Rules, 2018 issued vide notification dated 07.12.2018, the Governor of Haryana is pleased to appoint the Chairperson and Members of the State Police Complaint Authority…” The tenure of the Authority, as per the order, will be three years.

When HC quashed ex-IAS officer Mehra’s appointment

In Prakash Singh versus Union of India judgment, the apex court had in September 2006 held: “There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge, while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court.”

Based on this judgment, Arora had challenged the appointment of Mehra as the chairperson of Chandigarh Police Complaint Authority, leading to the quashing of his appointment in August 2015. The Chandigarh administration had then stated in the high court that the “directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh & Ors. versus Union of India and Ors. (supra) are not mandatory and are only directory in nature”.

The UT Administration had also stated that “before appointing Shri Pradip Mehra, IAS (Retd.) as Chairman of the Authority, a retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and a retired Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court were approached, but they did not consent to the proposed assignment”. The high court, however, termed the Chandigarh Administration’s response “a very queer and unacceptable stand”.

The HC had also insisted: “…it needs to be emphasised that argument advanced on behalf of the respondents (UT Administration) that the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Prakash Singh & Ors. Versus Union of India and Ors. (supra), are not mandatory, is patently fallacious, meritless and misconceived and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. The term ‘May’ used in paragraph 32(6) of the judgment cannot be read to mean that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are advisory or directory. The word ‘may’ has to be read as ‘shall’ and the directions have to be taken as mandatory.” The HC had stated: “In paragraph (31) of the judgment, it has been clearly stated that the directions are issued to ‘the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations’. Even otherwise, tenor of the judgment leaves nothing to guess as regards the mandatory nature of the directions.”

“It may be apposite to state here that the Authority is not expected to work as a post office meant to receive the complaints from the public and transmit the same to the officer heading the police force,” the high court had commented, quashing Mehra’s appointment.