SC faults trial judge’s move against IPS officer
NEW DELHI: Ending a 20-year-ego battle between a judicial officer and an IPS officer, Supreme Court Friday quashed summons and bailable warrants issued by a trial judge to then Kurukshetra SP Bharti Arora to show cause why ‘her role in letting off an accused in a narcotic drug case be not investigated’.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Mishra and K V Viswanathan said the judicial officer issued 7 summonses to her, who was probing the Samjhauta train bomb blast at that time, in a span of 10 days acting in a ‘predetermined manner’ and forgetting that “no one would be condemned without being heard”.
Justice Gavai said the trial judge ignored Arora’s plea that after coordinating the investigations in the train blast case, she was tasked to maintain law and order at a place where the situation had deteriorated due to an agitation.
When repeated summonses were being issued to Arora in 2008, who took voluntary retirement in 2021 as IGP, the judicial officer was transferred out on May 26, 2008 and directed to relinquish charge immediately, the judge kept the matter for hearing on May 27, 28, 29 and 30 and on the last day proceeded to type the order but kept in sealed cover to be pronounced by the successor judge.
The bench termed this a grave error. “It is a well-settled principle of law that justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done,” the bench said, while expressing surprise at HC’s decision to uphold the May 30, 2008, order. SC stayed HC order on Oct 26, 2010.
SC opened the sealed cover order of 2008 on Oct 24 and said after perusing the same “it became clear to us that the special judge had acted in a predetermined manner” against the then SP.
The controversy started with the arrest of a person in 2005 for possessing a huge quantity of narcotic drugs. But as he claimed innocence before then SP Arora, she ordered an inquiry, and it was found that three persons had planted the drugs on the person arrested. She released the arrested person and ordered proceedings against the three.
When a closure report for the case was sent, the special judge rejected it and ordered fresh inquiry, which too returned the same finding as that of the SP. Apparently enraged, the judge rejected that closure report, acquitted the three and convicted the person earlier arrested. Additionally, she initiated proceedings against the SP under NDPS Act for “interfering with the investigations into the case and summoned her to appear before the trial court.
