In a major setback to the left-led Kerala Government, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside the removal order of former Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) TP Senkumar. His two-year tenure that was ending in June was cut short soon after the left Front Government took charge of the State. The court directed his reinstatement with immediate effect.
With this order, now it will be difficult for a new Government to replace the State police chief and other senior police officers without any valid reasons. The SC held that to cut short the tenure of any “senior level officer” in the police department, there must be compelling reasons and material to justify his or her removal or displacement.
The order came on a petition filed by Senkumar, who will now retire from service in June this year.
In the famous police reforms case in Prakash Singh vs Union of India, the SC had ordered that the DGP’s tenure should be at least two years. Senkumar sought protection for his two-year rule under the Kerala Police Act, 2011.
The State Government had removed him under Section 97(2) (e), which provides for the ouster of a police chief on the grounds of “serious dissatisfaction in the general public about efficiency of police in his jurisdiction.”
The Bench of Justices Madan lokur and Deepak Gupta delved deep into the issue as this related to the implementation of the court’s 2006 decision on police reforms. Senior advocate Harish Salve, who appeared for the Kerala Government, argued that it was the State’s discretion to have an officer of its choice.
“If the said officer prima facie does not meet the Executive’s satisfaction, the removal cannot be questioned,” he said.
The State Government accused Senkumar of dereliction of duty in two incidents - Puttingal Temple tragedy and Jisha murder case. After going through the evidence on record, the Bench held, “We have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with.”
It further went on to state, “We are clearly of the opinion that the removal or displacement of any senior level officer from a tenure appointment must be for compelling reasons and must be justified by the authority concerned, if called upon to do so, on material that can be objectively tested.”
The State accused Senkumar of going slow in taking action against three police officers who failed to prevent the firecracker-related explosion at the temple festival.
The Bench was of the view that in the event of a law and order situation, the police are the first responders and as such, they must have a certain degree of freedom.
The Bench distinguished that removing a Chief Secretary who does not enjoy the confidence of the Chief Minister was different from moving a police chief.
It explained that Cabinet colleagues of the Chief Minister or senior bureaucrats may need to be investigated by the police.
“Can the Chief Minister then remove the State police chief on the ground that in such an event he or she does not enjoy the confidence of the Chief Minister or that there is no complete rapport and understanding between the State police chief and the Chief Minister.
“While the Chief Secretary can be removed if he or she does not have a complete rapport and understanding with the Chief Minister… that is not so with the State police chief,” the Bench said.