P. PUGALENTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, is filed by the petitioner, who is an Advocate, challenging the order in G.O.Ms.No.805 Home (Pol.V) Department, dated 7.10.2013, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, by which the Government constituted a Committee for considering the cases of accelerated promotion of police personnel, who have performed the acts of extra -ordinary bravery and valour, when engaged in their efforts to apprehend and deal with hardcore criminals, terrorists and other anti -social elements, who achieved operational success.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that though the Government order relates to the grant of accelerated promotion to police personnel, by granting such accelerated promotion, the police are encouraged to take the law into their own hands on the expectation that they will be rewarded for showing extra ordinary bravery in dealing with criminals/terrorists, etc., and such encouragement given to the police personnel will affect the public interest, and therefore the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation is maintainable.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner that if such accelerated promotion is allowed to be given to police personnel, they will take the law into their own hands and indulge in encounters, indiscriminately cannot be sustained. If any police personnel indulges in fake encounter, or use force unreasonably, the Constitutional Courts have taken serious view of the matter not only to punish the concerned police personnel under IPC offences, but also awarded compensation to the victims. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2011) 6 SCC 369 (Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Kishore Singh and Others) held that a police personnel, who is custodian of preserving law and order, if indulges in custodial violence/fake encounter or using unreasonable force while engaged in their duty, they should be imposed with harsh punishment than the ordinary persons. Paragraph -24 of the said judgment reads thus: