‘State has powers': SC declines to interfere with senior cop's suspension in TN

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior police officer and Tamil Nadu's additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest.
The top court also requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench.
The court said the matter warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the state government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.'
A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension on June 17 was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending.
Jayaram, an Indian Police Service officer (IPS) of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after his alleged role emerged in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May after his elder brother married a woman without approval from their families in Thiruvallur district.
On June 16, the high court's justice P Velmurugan directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police.
However, the Supreme Court, which had questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, and allowed Jayaram to challenge it before the appropriate forum.
'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.'
During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave.
Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.'
To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed.
Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court had overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted.
The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said.
Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.'
In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave clarified that the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension… We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.'
Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother reportedly married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple.
According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel.
The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with high court directions.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

News18

2 hours ago

• News18

'Act Was Brutal But...': MP HC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old

Last Updated: The court held that while the convict's actions were horrifying, they were not executed with a degree of cruelty or depravity that would justify the death penalty. The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday commuted the death sentence of a 20-year-old tribal man convicted of raping a 4-year-old child, converting the punishment to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years. The Court acknowledged the 'barbaric" nature of the act but found that it did not rise to the level of 'brutality" necessary to warrant capital punishment. The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra held that while the convict's actions were horrifying, they were not executed with a degree of cruelty or depravity that would justify the death penalty. 'In this case, no doubt that appellant's act was brutal as he has committed rape upon the victim of four years and three months of age and after committing rape also throttled her treating her dead and thrown the victim in such a place where she could not be searched and left the spot but it is also clear that he has not committed brutality," the Court observed, distinguishing between the two concepts while citing Supreme Court precedents. Background of the Case The convict, a 20-year-old from a Scheduled Tribe, was sentenced to death by a trial court for abducting and raping a 4-year-old girl and leaving her for dead in a mango orchard. The trial court had noted that the victim suffered permanent disability as a result of the assault. The incident occurred after the convict allegedly entered the complainant's hut under the pretext of requesting a cot and later abducted the minor victim from a nearby house during the night. He was later arrested and charged under Sections 450, 363, 376(a), 376AB, 307, and 201 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. Advocate Samar Singh Rajpoot, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitness testimony or conclusive proof linking the convict to the crime. He contended that the post-mortem report did not conclusively support the trial court's finding of permanent disability and that the evidence had likely been fabricated post-arrest. He further urged the Court to consider mitigating factors including the convict's age, clean record, illiteracy, tribal background, and the fact that he had been working in a roadside eatery after leaving home at a young age. State's Response Opposing the appeal, Deputy Advocate General Yash Soni argued that the gravity of the offence, committed against a 4-year-old and followed by the child being left to die, warranted no leniency. He asserted that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. High Court's Observations The Court rejected the defence argument that the child had suffered permanent disability, noting that the only medical testimony, by Dr. Rakesh Shukla, did not provide clear evidence or specify the nature or extent of injury that could establish lifelong disability. However, it upheld the conviction under all relevant sections, including aggravated rape under the POCSO Act, while commuting the sentence on the ground that the act, though 'barbaric," did not involve 'brutality" in the legal sense established by the Supreme Court in Manoharan v. State, Bhaggi v. State of MP, and Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal. 'There is no report that he has previously committed any such type of offence… He is not properly educated," the Court noted. Final Sentence The High Court affirmed the convictions but converted the death penalty to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, along with a fine of Rs.10,000 under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. In default of payment, the convict will undergo an additional year of rigorous imprisonment.

Hans India

4 hours ago

• Hans India

Calcutta High Court Blocks Bengal Government's Stipend Plan For Dismissed Staff

The Calcutta High Court has intervened to block the West Bengal government's attempt to provide monthly stipends to non-teaching staff who lost their positions following a Supreme Court ruling on recruitment irregularities. Justice Amrita Sinha delivered the order on Friday, effectively halting the state government's stipend payments that were designed to support Group C and D non-teaching employees affected by the April Supreme Court judgment. The controversy stems from a major recruitment fraud that occurred in 2016 through the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC). The Supreme Court had previously upheld the Calcutta High Court's decision to terminate the appointments of over 25,000 teaching and non-teaching staff members due to irregularities in the selection process. In April, a Supreme Court bench comprising former Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar characterized the recruitment process as fundamentally flawed and fraudulent. The court found evidence of systematic manipulation including OMR sheet tampering and rank falsification. Following the mass dismissals, the Mamata Banerjee-led state government announced a financial support package for affected non-teaching staff. The scheme proposed monthly stipends of Rs 25,000 for Group C employees and Rs 20,000 for Group D staff members. This compensation plan was the government's response to the widespread job losses resulting from the Supreme Court's strict enforcement of recruitment integrity standards. Multiple petitions were filed in the Calcutta High Court challenging both the government's stipend decision and the format of new recruitment processes being planned for teaching positions. The court reserved judgment on these matters the previous Monday before delivering Friday's ruling. The High Court's intervention reflects ongoing judicial scrutiny of how the state government handles the aftermath of the recruitment scandal. The Supreme Court's April decision was unambiguous in its condemnation of the 2016 recruitment process. The court described the appointments as fraudulent and equivalent to cheating, finding no grounds to overturn the High Court's original dismissal order. However, the Supreme Court did provide some relief by ruling that dismissed employees would not be required to return salaries they had already received during their employment period. The case highlights the broader implications of recruitment fraud in public sector employment. With over 25,000 positions affected across state-run and state-aided schools, the scandal has had significant consequences for both the education system and the individuals whose careers were disrupted. The High Court's latest ruling adds another layer of complexity to the state government's efforts to address the fallout from the recruitment irregularities while maintaining judicial oversight of remedial measures.

Scroll.in

4 hours ago

• Scroll.in

Supreme Court stopped ‘bulldozer justice', executive cannot be judge and jury: CJI Gavai

Highlighting that the Supreme Court had held so-called bulldozer justice to be illegal, Chief Justice BR Gavai on Wednesday said that the 'executive cannot become judge, jury and executioner all at once', The Times of India reported. The chief justice said that the right to shelter was a fundamental right, PTI reported. There are no provisions in Indian law that allow for the demolition of property as a punitive measure. However, the practice has become commonplace in Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states. In November, the Supreme Court held as illegal the practice of demolishing properties of persons accused of crimes as a punitive measure. It said that processes must be followed before removing allegedly illegal encroachments. On Wednesday, referring to the judgement, Gavai said: '…the court held that such arbitrary demolitions, which bypass legal processes, violate the rule of law and the fundamental right to shelter under Article 21'. Gavai also said that for common citizens, building a house was 'often the culmination of years of hard work, dreams and aspirations', The Times of India reported. 'A house is not just a property but embodies the collective hopes of a family or individuals for stability, security and a future,' the chief justice added. The chief justice made the comments at a gathering of judges in Italy where he spoke about the role of the Constitution in delivering socio-economic justice.