HC wants IOs, counsels to improve coordination

Today, in one such matter, he summoned Deputy Commissioner of Police (South) Amulya Patnaik. The case, relating to the south district where a young girl had been reported missing, had to be adjourned due to the absence of the IO.

Patnaik explained that the IO was present during the previous hearing as well but was in another courtroom at that time. Justice Bhandari said that this problem was common and that the IOs should come prepared in advance and brief state counsels.

The judge said that the problem is that the IOs come to court just when the hearing is underway and brief counsel for a minute or less in the court itself. Most of the times counsel is not prepared and asks for a pass over of an adjournment, he added. And there are instances when the IO does not even recognise counsel, the judge observed.

“This way the IOs do not brief counsel properly. A murder investigation takes months of careful work but is told to counsel in less than a minute and remains very unsatisfactory. Counsel then fumbles in court. The level of preparation by the counsel, I am sorry to say leaves much to be desired,” he added.

He asked whether such was the case even when clients went to private lawyers. When he received a negative answer, he said: “Then why should it happen with the state? The court expects assistance from government counsel.

Justice should not happen by default.” DCP Patnaik submitted that counsels too remained busy and could not spare time for the IOs. To this the court said: “Let them come a day in advance. Let there not be total chaos. The IO needn’t come to brief counsel, any other police official conversant with the case can do so.”

The judge directed the DCP to formulate a procedure so that the IOs and counsels have better coordination. Patnaik assured him that he would do his best but said his (Patnaik’s) writ was restricted to south district. The judge directed Patnaik to meet the police commissioner and chalk out a strategy for the entire city.