THE SUPREME Court on Friday set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court order directing the state to remove DGP Sanjay Kundu from the post to ensure a fair probe into a businessman’s complaint about threat to his life. On December 26 last year, the High Court had asked the state government to remove Kundu and Kangra SP Shalini Agnihotri in connection with the matter. On January 3, the apex court stayed the order and allowed Kundu to move a plea in the High Court seeking recall of its December 26 order. But the High Court on January 9 rejected Kundu’s prayer. On Friday, a three-judge Supreme Court bench presided by CJI D Y Chandrachud said, “At the outset, we must express reservations over the manner in which the High Court took up the matter ex parte and issued directions for transferring the petitioner out of the post of DGP.” The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwal and Manoj Misra, said, “The consequence of shifting out an IPS officer from the sole post of DGP in a state are serious. As a consequence of the earlier order of the High Court, which the state government accepted, petitioner was shifted as principal secretary, Ayush. Such an order could not have been passed without an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the allegations against him and to place his response before the court.” “The correct course of action for the High Court would have been to recall its ex parte order dated December 26, 2023 and to then set down the proceedings afresh so as to furnish both the petitioner and the complainant and other affected parties, including the SP Shimla, an opportunity to place their perspectives before it.” “The exercise, which has been followed by the High Court, follows from a patent error of jurisdiction in as much as, an order passed with serious consequences of the nature that emanated from the directions which were issued on December 26, 2023 ought to be proceeded by compliance with the principles of natural justice.” The High Court had also asked the state to consider setting up a Special Investigation Team to probe the allegations and counter allegations and to provide security to the complainant businessman, Nishant Sharma. The Supreme Court, while not disturbing these directions, modified the part where the High Court asked the state to consider setting up an SIT and instead directed the government to do so. “The SIT shall consist of IG-level officers who shall not report to the petitioner for the purpose of the investigation,” the top court said, keeping Kundu out of the probe. It also directed the police to provide adequate security to Sharma and his family. In his complaint to the High Court on October 28, Sharma had alleged a threat to him and family from his business partners. He alleged that Kundu tried to pressure him to withdraw his complaint.
