Police officers facing ire of new govt a disturbing trend: SC

“State of affairs in the country is sad. When a political party is in power, police officials side with a particular party," CJI Ramana said.

By: Express News Service

New Delhi | Updated: August 27, 2021 04:25 AM IST

2 min read

A bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana granted the suspended IPS officer interim protection from arrest for four weeks. (File Photo)

Chief Justice of India N V Ramana Thursday flagged the “disturbing trend” of police personnel under one dispensation facing the ire when a different political party assumes office.

“State of affairs in the country is sad. When a political party is in power, police officials side with a particular party. Then when a new party comes into power, the government initiates action against those officials. This is a new trend, which needs to be stopped,” CJI Ramana, heading a two-judge bench, remarked while granting protection from arrest to Chhattisgarh Police Academy’s suspended director Gurjinder Pal Singh.

Singh was booked for sedition and amassing of disproportionate assets.

Appearing for the 1994-batch IPS officer, senior advocate F S Nariman said Singh served as Additional DGP (ADGP) and was director of the police academy, and now proceedings under IPC Section 124A (sedition) have been initiated against him. Nariman said there was no need for custodial interrogation of the officer, as the chargesheet has already been filed. He submitted that the present Chhattisgarh CM had once sought Singh’s help against his predecessor.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who also represented Singh, sought protection from any coercive action.

Appearing for the state government, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi urged the court not to grant him protection from arrest, saying that he had been the head of police academy but “look at his conduct; he has been absconding”.

“We will consider the sedition case. This is a very disturbing trend and the police department itself is responsible for this… Do not say that your client (Singh) was fair, your client must have acted as per directions of the government of the day…” the bench responded.