Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1298 (DEL)

Court on its Own Motion v. Union of India

2015-05-13

G.ROHINI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

body2015
Judgment :- 1. We have taken suo motu cognizance of the incident reported in the news media of a Traffic Policeman, in retaliation, hurling a brick at a woman in the Golf Links area on 11th May, 2015. 2. Union of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Police Commissioner of Delhi have been impleaded by us as respondents no.1 to 3 and advance intimation of listing of this petition was given to the Standing Counsels. 3. Ms. Shweta, Proxy Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Delhi Police has handed over a Status Report on behalf of Delhi Police with respect to the said incident and which is taken on record. It is reported that, (i) a criminal case has been registered against the concerned Traffic Policeman; (ii) medical examination of the lady concerned has been got done and the injuries suffered by the lady have been reported to be simple; (iii) the concerned Traffic Policeman was arrested and has been sent to judicial custody till 26th May, 2015; and, (iv) the concerned Traffic Policeman has been dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India. 4. What has been reported in the Status Report had already been reported by the news media and we have taken suo motu cognizance of the matter not for the reason of finding the police authorities wanting in any respect with respect to the incident but being concerned with the larger implications/picture which has acquired alarming proportions. The subject incident has merely acted as a precursor for this Court to take suo motu cognizance thereof. 5. The incidents of what has come to be known as “road rage” in the city are now on the rise and are being reported regularly. Commuters, on the smallest of the provocation, are known to have hit out at their fellow commuters violently, sometimes also fatally. Everyone on the road appears to be on a short fuse. No solution, at least to our knowledge, has been proposed till now and in fact we are not even aware whether the issue is being addressed by the Police or the other authorities concerned at all. Now, we have a case where perhaps the traffic policeman also has displayed such rage, rather than control the others. 6. The aforesaid is coupled with the image which the city Police has with its citizens. Now, we have a case where perhaps the traffic policeman also has displayed such rage, rather than control the others. 6. The aforesaid is coupled with the image which the city Police has with its citizens. It appears that the citizens have no faith or respect for the police personnel and instead of treating them as an ally or a friend or as someone to turn to in case of need, treat them as a foe and fear them. Though, some efforts are made by the Police through the media to portray a friendly and helpful face of the Police but the same have obviously not yielded any result. The Supreme Court in Daroga Singh Vs. B.K. Pandey (2004) 5 SCC 26 ) lamented that the Police has not been able to shake off the legacy of suspicion and dislike and change the attitude / trait of hostility with the people, which though was understandable in the British Raj but uncalled for in a democracy. We are again not aware whether the authorities concerned are looking into the said aspect at all. 7. Managing the movement of pedestrians and vehicles on the roads, with the size and capacity of the roads remaining the same and the number of users thereof increasing day by day, requires the matter to be looked at differently and scientifically. Again, at least to our knowledge there is no step being taken in the said direction. 8. We are no longer living in an era where the government or governmental agencies are relieved of their obligation merely by constructing the roads and the pavements for use of the citizens. Once the number of users of the road is more than what the roads and the pavements were meant for, the matter requires special knowledge and effort for managing the vehicular and pedestrian movement on the road. Perhaps the same will have the effect of, reducing the commuting time, smoother movement and resultantly less altercations and less incidents of road rage. 9. At the same time it is also not as if it is the governmental agencies and the government employees alone who are responsible for maintaining peace and sanity on the roads. The founding fathers of our Constitution, besides incorporating therein the Directive Principles of State Policy, also listed the duties of every citizen of India. 9. At the same time it is also not as if it is the governmental agencies and the government employees alone who are responsible for maintaining peace and sanity on the roads. The founding fathers of our Constitution, besides incorporating therein the Directive Principles of State Policy, also listed the duties of every citizen of India. To abide by the Constitution i.e. the laws and respect its ideals and institutions, to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood, to safeguard public property and to abjure violence, are some of the Fundamental Duties prescribed in Article 51A of the Constitution of every citizen of India. Alas! the citizens also appear to be wanting in performance of their duties. Such a situation, if remains unchecked, will snowball into a “jungle raj” with only the physically fittest amongst us surviving. 10. The news clip of the incident shows that before the traffic policeman hurled the brick at the woman, she hurled a brick at the Traffic Policeman?s motorcycle. A traffic policeman?s vehicle, we presume, will qualify as “public property”. We are pained to see a citizen so behaving. The Supreme Court recently in Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary, Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1 ) observed that even if action of Police was wrong in law, it gave no right to others to commit any offence. In the said judgment, the principle of contributory / vicarious liability was evolved. Yet recently, in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. (2014 (14) SCALE 59), Supreme Court observed that a society expects responsibility and accountability from the member and it desires that citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. 11. We have asked Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India, though not appearing today but present in the Court, whether the police has collected copies of the recordings of all the T.V. channels covering the incident. 12. Similarly, however disgraceful the behaviour on the part of the citizen was, the same ought not to have elicited a retaliation from the concerned traffic policeman. One who is entrusted with the task of maintaining discipline in the society must first be itself be disciplined. In an evaluation of Indian Police after 50 years of independence, Sh. 12. Similarly, however disgraceful the behaviour on the part of the citizen was, the same ought not to have elicited a retaliation from the concerned traffic policeman. One who is entrusted with the task of maintaining discipline in the society must first be itself be disciplined. In an evaluation of Indian Police after 50 years of independence, Sh. S.V.M. Tripathi, former Director General of Police has observed that a sensitive police officer can ensure justice and fairplay as no other public servant can. Citizens expect the police as humane and efficient, professional and disciplined. Long back in Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677 ), Supreme Court had observed that police officers as custodians of law and order should not flout the laws by stooping to bizarre acts of lawlessness. 13. We would like the respondents to respond to our aforesaid views and to place on record the measures if any taken to address the malady. The counter affidavits be filed before the next date. 14. The respondents also need to look at the aspect of training and counselling of police personnel. This Court as far back as in Baldev Band Vs. U.O.I. commented on the constraints and difficulties under which the police has to perform. We would like the respondents to respond thereto as well. 15. We clarify that , the fact that we have taken suo motu cognizance or any of our observations herein are not to affect/influence the investigation in the FIR stated to have been registered or any proceedings before any court in relation thereto. We, in this proceeding are examining the larger issue as aforesaid.