Supreme Court reinstates T.P. Senkumar as Kerala Police Chief, Emphasizing Tenure Protection (2017)

Can a State Police Chief be transferred before completing their minimum tenure? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in the case of Dr. T.P. Senkumar IPS vs. Union of India & Ors. This case highlights the importance of tenure for police officers and the need for objective reasons when transferring them. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal, reinstating Dr. T.P. Senkumar as the State Police Chief. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Madan B. Lokur authoring the opinion.

Case Background

Dr. T.P. Senkumar, an Indian Police Service officer, was appointed as the Director General of Police & Head of Police Force (State Police Chief) on May 22, 2015. According to Section 97 of The Kerala Police Act, 2011, he was entitled to a minimum tenure of two years. However, on June 1, 2016, he was transferred to the Kerala Police Housing and Construction Corporation Ltd. This transfer occurred after the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder case. Dr. Senkumar challenged this transfer, arguing that it violated his right to a minimum tenure.

The Puttingal Temple tragedy occurred on April 10, 2016, resulting in over 100 deaths. The incident was a result of a fireworks display which was conducted despite denial of permission by the District Administration. Following the tragedy, a note was prepared by the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) on April 13, 2016, based on reports from various officials. The note identified lapses by field officers but did not implicate Dr. Senkumar. Another tragic incident, the Jisha murder case, occurred on April 28, 2016, further complicating the situation.

The State Government, after a change in leadership, issued notes on May 26, 2016, alleging that Dr. Senkumar’s leadership was unsatisfactory. These notes cited his handling of the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder case as reasons for his transfer. Consequently, the Chief Minister decided to replace him on May 27, 2016, and this decision was ratified by the Cabinet on June 1, 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Dr. Senkumar first challenged his transfer before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed his petition on July 21, 2016. The Tribunal held that the transfer was not mala fide and was based on the government’s prima facie satisfaction that there was serious public dissatisfaction with the police’s efficiency. Subsequently, Dr. Senkumar filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which was also dismissed on January 25, 2017. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the government’s subjective satisfaction was sufficient and that there was no evidence of mala fides. This led Dr. Senkumar to appeal to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Kerala Police Act, 2011, specifically Section 97, which mandates a minimum tenure of two years for the State Police Chief. Section 97(2)(e) allows for the transfer of a police officer before completing their tenure if there is “serious dissatisfaction in the general public about the efficiency of police in his jurisdiction.”

The Supreme Court also considered its previous judgment in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 1, which emphasized the need for police reforms and the insulation of the police from political influence. The court noted that some directions given in Prakash Singh, such as the binding nature of the State Security Commission’s recommendations, were not fully adopted in the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

Section 18 of the Act states:
“18. State Police Chief – (1) The administration, supervision, direction and control of the Police throughout the State shall, subject to the control of the Government, be vested in an officer designated as the State Police Chief.
(2) The State Police Chief shall be appointed by the Government from among those officers of the State Cadre of the Indian Police Service who have already been promoted to the rank of Director General of Police, taking into account the ability to lead the Police Force of the State, the overall history of service, professional knowledge and experience:
Provided that where in a case or disciplinary proceedings, for and on behalf of the State a charge has been given or is pending against an officer before any Court or Tribunal or departmental agency, that officer shall not be appointed as the State Police Chief.”

Section 97 of the Act states:
“97. Minimum tenure of police officers .- (1) The Government shall ensure a minimum tenure of two years for police officers posted as State Police Chief, Inspectors General in charge of Ranges, Superintendents of Police or Commissioners in charge of Police Districts and State House Officers:
Provided that this tenure shall not be applicable in cases of superannuation, promotion, reversion, suspension, leave, etc.
(2) The Government or the appointing authority may, without prejudice to the right to initiate any legal or departmental action transfer any police officer before completing the normal tenure of two years, on being satisfied prime facie that it is necessary to do so on any of the following grounds stated in (a) to (f) namely:-
(a)the officer is subjected to disciplinary action;
(b)it is found prima facie on investigation that the officer is involved in a corrupt practice or in a criminal offence involving proclivity for violence or moral turpitude;
(c)the officer is physically or mentally incapable of discharging his duties;
(d)a superior officer evaluating the work of an officer, reports, in writing, that the officer is not carrying out his duties efficiently;
(e)cause serious dissatisfaction in the general public about efficiency of police in his jurisdiction;
(f)the officer requests, in writing, for a transfer from the place where he is working.”

Arguments

The State Government argued that Dr. Senkumar’s transfer was justified under Section 97(2)(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, due to serious public dissatisfaction with the efficiency of the police under his leadership. They contended that his actions following the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder case demonstrated a lack of leadership and an attempt to protect erring police officers. The State also alleged that he tried to interfere with the Crime Branch investigation into the Puttingal Temple tragedy. The State relied on the principle that the government has the prerogative to appoint and transfer officers, especially in sensitive positions, and that the court should not interfere with this prerogative.

Dr. Senkumar, on the other hand, argued that his transfer was arbitrary and violated his right to a minimum tenure of two years. He contended that the reasons cited for his transfer were not based on objective facts or verifiable material. He argued that he was not directly responsible for the events of the Puttingal Temple tragedy or the Jisha murder case. He further argued that the government’s satisfaction regarding public dissatisfaction was subjective and not based on any concrete evidence. He also pointed out that the State Security Commission, which was supposed to play a role in such matters, was not functioning independently.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant’s displacement from the post of State Police Chief in Kerala before the expiry of his tenure of two years was justified in law?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by emphasizing that the transfer of a State Police Chief before the completion of their minimum tenure requires compelling reasons and must be justified by verifiable material. The court held that the “serious dissatisfaction” mentioned in Section 97(2)(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, must be based on objective facts and not on subjective perceptions. The court noted that the State Government did not provide any concrete evidence of public dissatisfaction, relying instead on a general opinion. The Court also noted that the State Police Chief is not responsible for the general executive administration, unlike the Chief Secretary, and therefore the same standards for transfer cannot apply.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Authorities:

The Court relied on the principles laid down in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 1* to emphasize the need for police reforms and the insulation of the police from political influence. The Court distinguished the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3*, noting that it did not deal with a tenure post. The Court also held that the case of Citizens for Justice & Peace v. State of Gujarat (2009) 11 SCC 213* was inapplicable as it concerned appointment, not removal from a tenure post. The Court also referred to M.A. Rasheed v. State of Kerala (1974) 2 SCC 687* on the issue of ‘satisfaction’ of an executive authority. The Court also cited Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16* and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 1978 (1) SCC 405* for the principle that public orders must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to protect the tenure of police officers and to ensure that transfers are based on objective and verifiable reasons, not on subjective perceptions or political considerations. The Court emphasized that the rule of law requires that executive actions be grounded in verifiable facts and not on mere opinions or public expectations. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining the independence of the police force from political interference, as emphasized in Prakash Singh’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and the interpretation of the relevant statutes. The Court found that the State Government’s actions were not in line with the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. The Court observed that the State Government did not provide any concrete evidence of public dissatisfaction, relying instead on a general opinion and that the State Police Chief is not responsible for the general executive administration, unlike the Chief Secretary, and therefore the same standards for transfer cannot apply.

The Court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction of the State Government must be based on some credible material, which the Court can review. The Court found that there was no material adverse to the interests of the appellant, except an expression of opinion and views formed as late as on 26th May, 2016.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“The subjective satisfaction of the State Government must be based on some credible material, which this Court might not analyze but which can certainly be looked into.”

“We are a little disturbed by the resurrection of the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder case on 26th May, 2016 as soon as the present government in Kerala assumed office.”

“On an overall consideration of the material on record and considering the case in its proper perspective, that is the events post the Puttingal Temple tragedy and the Jisha murder and not the two tragedies themselves, we have no hesitation in concluding that the appellant has been unfairly and arbitrarily dealt with.”

Key Takeaways

• Tenure Protection: The judgment reinforces the importance of tenure for police officers, particularly the State Police Chief, to ensure their independence and impartiality.
• Objective Reasons: Transfers of police officers must be based on objective reasons and verifiable material, not on subjective perceptions or political considerations.
• Rule of Law: The judgment emphasizes that executive actions must be grounded in verifiable facts and not on mere opinions or public expectations.
• Judicial Review: The courts have the power to review administrative actions, even those based on subjective satisfaction, to ensure they are not arbitrary or unfair.
• Independence of Police: The judgment highlights the need to maintain the independence of the police force from political interference, as emphasized in Prakash Singh’s case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the State of Kerala to reinstate Dr. T.P. Senkumar as the State Police Chief.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the transfer of a State Police Chief before the completion of their minimum tenure must be based on objective and verifiable reasons, and not on subjective perceptions or political considerations. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 97(2)(e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011, emphasizing that the “serious dissatisfaction” must be grounded in concrete evidence. This decision also reinforces the principles laid down in Prakash Singh’s case regarding the need to insulate the police from political interference, thereby creating a change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dr. T.P. Senkumar IPS vs. Union of India & Ors. is a landmark decision that reinforces the importance of tenure protection for police officers and the need for objective reasons for their transfer. The Court held that the transfer of Dr. Senkumar was arbitrary and not based on verifiable material, and therefore directed his reinstatement as the State Police Chief of Kerala. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the independence of the police force and ensuring that executive actions are grounded in the rule of law.