PCA acting beyond powers,UT petitions High Court

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment which clearly stipulates that recommendations by the said authority would be binding,the High Court,last year,had questioned how PCA had been made “toothless”. Following this,the administration had sent a communication to the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking an amendment to the said notification. Earlier,it was being contemplated that the said Supreme Court judgment would be challenged in the apex court.

But now the MHA has directed the administration to file a “review” of the High Court order. As a result,the administration on Friday filed an application in the High Court seeking “modification” or “correction” of its October last order.

In its detailed application,the administration has submitted that the PCA has no powers to order registration of an FIR against private individuals,yet it is ordering so. The administration has annexed half a dozen orders passed by the PCA which,according to the administration,the authority is not empowered to pass. These include directions to register FIR against private individuals; suspension of “errant” police officers; change of investigating officer; and delivering possession of property to a party. Saying that the PCA has no power to interfere in these domains,the administration is requesting the High Court to take cognisance and modify its last year’s order.

It has further been submitted by the administration that the PCA is also passing orders in violation of the Supreme Court judgment on the basis of which the High Court directed the administration to give more teeth to the PCA.

The application will come up for hearing on Monday with the main case which is hanging fire. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed on June 5,2012. Stating that the PCA had been reduced to a “complaint box” and a “toothless tiger” by the Chandigarh Police and administration,the petitioner had sought powers to direct for the PCA.

The PIL was opposed tooth and nail by the administration on the grounds that the “directions” of PCA were not binding but were mere recommendations. The counsel for the administration had also contended that amending notification for PCA would amount to giving PCA “ex officio control” over the police force.