Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 59 (SC)

Shankar Mahadev Bidari v. State Of Karnataka

2013-01-10

AFTAB ALAM, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI

body2013
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court after its earlier judgment was set aside by this Court and the matter was remitted to the High Court for a fresh consideration on certain issues in light of the observations and directions made in this Court's order. 3. The appellant's appointment as Director General of Police (DGP), Karnataka, was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench by its order dated March 16, 2012 passed in Original Application no.545/2011 filed by A.R. Infant (respondent No.4 in this appeal). 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, both the appellant and the State of Karnataka took the matter to the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.9655 of 2012 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.8788 of 2012 respectively. The Karnataka High Court by its judgment and order dated May 28, 2012 dismissed both the Writ Petitions affirming the judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 5. Against the judgment and order passed by the High Court, both the appellant and the State of Karnataka came to this Court in SLP(Civil) No.13144/2012 (giving rise to Civil Appeal No.3799/2012) and SLP(Civil) No.12193/2012 (giving rise to Civil Appeal No.3800/2012). Both the appeals were disposed of by this Court by order dated April 24, 2012 by which, as noted above, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the cases were remitted to the High Court. 6. The controversy in this case revolves around certain proceedings before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the report of enquiry made by Justice Sadashiv at the behest of the Commission in regard to the operations of a joint Special Task Force (STF) that was set up by the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to apprehend the notorious forest brigand and sandalwood smuggler, Veerappan. The task force operated jointly under the command of one Walter Devaram, who was at that time the ADGP, Law & Order, Tamil Nadu and the present appellant as its Deputy Commander. There were reports of rapes and many other kinds of atrocities committed upon the tribals in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by the STF and on receipt of the reports, the NHRC had asked Justice Sadashiv to make an enquiry into the allegations. There were reports of rapes and many other kinds of atrocities committed upon the tribals in the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu by the STF and on receipt of the reports, the NHRC had asked Justice Sadashiv to make an enquiry into the allegations. Justice Sadashiv had submitted his report to the NHRC (referred to as the panel's report). 7. The judgments of both the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded on the presumption that the report of the panel indicted and/or adversely commented upon the role of the appellant as the Deputy Commander of the STF in regard to the atrocities and rapes, etc. committed by the members of the force upon the tribals in the two States. Based on that presumption, the High Court went on to hold that the omission of the State Government to place the panel's report and the proceedings/orders of the NHRC before the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) had vitiated the selection panel prepared by the Commission (from which the appellant's appointment was made) as the Commission did not have before it all the relevant materials to assess the appellant's suitability for appointment to the post of DGP, Karnataka. Curiously, however, neither the panel's report nor the proceedings/orders of the NHRC were presented before the High Court and the observations of the High Court regarding the presumed indictment of the appellant were based on a representation filed by a certain NGO, a copy of which was one of the annexures to the application filed by respondent No.4 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 8. In course of hearing of the appeals (Civil Appeals Nos.3799 and 3800 of 2012), the full report of the panel and the proceedings/orders of the NHRC were presented before this Court and on going through the report and the proceedings of the NHRC, the Court prima facie found it difficult to hold that there was any adverse comment personally against the appellant, much less his indictment, concerning the atrocities committed against the tribals in either the panel's report or the proceedings of the NHRC and the presumed findings and the observations of the High Court, therefore, appeared to be quite unfounded. This Court also touched upon the issue regarding the relevance of the report of the panel and the proceedings of the NHRC for preparation of the selection panel by the UPSC. This Court also touched upon the issue regarding the relevance of the report of the panel and the proceedings of the NHRC for preparation of the selection panel by the UPSC. However, on hearing counsel for all the sides, this Court refrained from making any final pronouncement on the issues raised before it but deemed it proper to set aside the High Court's order and to remit the case to it to consider the entire matter afresh in light of the panel's report and the proceedings of the NHRC. 9. It was clarified that all the observations made in the order were tentative and prima facie in nature and in light of the panel's report and the proceedings/orders of the NHRC, the High Court would be at liberty to form its own view both on the question whether in the panel's report and/or the proceedings/order of the NHRC there was any adverse comment on the appellant and in case it came to the finding that there was no adverse comment against him in the reports and the proceedings/orders, whether those materials would still be relevant for consideration by the UPSC for preparing the panel for appointment as DGP, Karnataka. All contentions of both sides were expressly left upon. 10. After the remand, the High Court passed the impugned judgment dismissing both the Writ Petitions and recording the findings against the appellant. 11. Before proceeding any further in the matter, it needs to be noted that Mr. Ahmadi, senior counsel appearing for the appellant, on receiving instructions from the appellant, who, in course of hearing, was personally present in Court, made the positive statement that since the appellant has now crossed the age of superannuation, he is now resigned to the fact that he can no longer be appointed as DGP, Karnataka. Mr. Ahmadi further stated that the appellant does not intend to press the other Writ Petition being No. Writ Petition (Civil) No.526 of 2012 presently pending before this Court and he would withdraw that Writ Petition also. Mr. Ahmadi, however, submitted that the appellant was deeply aggrieved by the findings and observations made by the High Court that cast stigma on his otherwise unblemished career as a police officer and he wished to press this appeal only against the observations and findings of the High Court so as to restore his honour as a police officer. 12. Mr. Ahmadi, however, submitted that the appellant was deeply aggrieved by the findings and observations made by the High Court that cast stigma on his otherwise unblemished career as a police officer and he wished to press this appeal only against the observations and findings of the High Court so as to restore his honour as a police officer. 12. The High Court has rendered a long and detailed judgment at the end of which it has recorded its finding in paragraph 105 of the judgment as under:- "Accordingly, we answer the points for consideration as under:- (I) There is a specific reference to the name of the third respondent in the panel report at (i) paragraph 59 page 54 (ii) paragraph 33 pages 390-392 (iii) paragraph 35 page 396 which is in the nature of adverse comment, with respect to his functioning as a Commandant of the Task Force. (II) The finding recorded by the panel to the effect that (a) the allegation of rape insofar as Smt. Lakshmi is proved (vide paragraph 47 - internal page 120 & paragraph 57 - internal page 129). (b) The finding that MWs 2 and 5 must have subjected to some form of torture including the outraging of modesty by the STF and similarly MW1-Erammal have suffered indignity (para 53 internal page 125 and para 91 - page 171) coupled with the fact in Annexure- IV the particulars of the victims of the torture they suffered has been clearly set out, would show that the STF commanded by the third respondent committed rape, torture, disrobing of women, giving electrical current and other excesses as set out therein. (c) The finding that the allegations of encounter deaths cannot be brushed aside as baseless. Firing seems to have been done at very close contact range and in 12 connected cases the victims had been fired at from both sides the front as well as back. When an encounter by itself becomes 'suspect' because of the suspicious features surrounding any one of the deaths ascribed to that encounter, the benefit of compensation should be extended to all the deceased victims of that encounter. (para 20 page 355). (d) The finding that the excesses committed by the STF in the course of interrogation in brazen violation of human rights cannot be justified. (para 29 page 387). (para 20 page 355). (d) The finding that the excesses committed by the STF in the course of interrogation in brazen violation of human rights cannot be justified. (para 29 page 387). Therefore, the aforesaid panel report and the orders passed by the NHRC which upheld the findings in the report and recommended for payment of compensation constitutes relevant and material information and data which ought to have been placed before the UPSC by the State. (III) As the said panel report/NHRC orders are withheld from the UPSC/not placed before the UPSC, the empanelment of the third respondent by the UPSC is vitiated and consequently the order appointing the third respondent as DG and IGP of Karnataka is also vitiated." 13. From sub-paragraph (I) of paragraph 105 as extracted above, it is evident that the High Court has found that the panel's report comments adversely on the appellant, not in his personal capacity, but vicariously upon his role "as a Commandant of the Task Force". The High Court's findings are based on paragraphs 59, 33 and 35 of the panel's report which are reproduced in paragraphs 52, 79 and 80 respectively of the High Court judgment. We have gone through those paragraphs of the panel's report and we have also examined some other parts of the report to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Batra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Having read the paragraphs from the panel's report that are referred to in the High Court Judgment along with and in the context of other paragraphs of the report we find it difficult to construe those paragraphs as containing any adverse comment much less any indictment of the appellant in his role as the Deputy Commandant of the STF. 14. In any way, the observations and findings of the High Court are now no more than of academic interest and are of no practical consequence. We, therefore, do not see any reason to delve further in the matter and to consider all the other points raised by Mr. Ahmadi on behalf of the appellant. Now that both the appellant and respondent No.4 have crossed the age of superannuation and a decision by this Court in this matter is not going to materially affect either of them in any way, it would be best to put a quietus to this matter.