Supreme Court Upholds Appointment of Special Officer for Idol Theft Cases: State of Tamil Nadu vs. Elephant G. Rajendran (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 3918-3919
Judges: Ashok Bhushan J., K.M. Joseph J.

Can a retired police officer be appointed to head a special investigation team? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the theft of ancient idols in Tamil Nadu. The core issue revolved around the legality of the Madras High Court’s decision to appoint a retired police officer as a Special Officer to head the Idol Wing of the Crime Investigation Department (CID), and whether the High Court could quash a government order transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, allowing the retired officer to continue his work, while modifying some of the directions issued by the High Court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case originated from concerns over the theft of ancient idols from temples in Tamil Nadu. The state government had formed an Idol Wing within the CID to investigate these thefts. Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel, was appointed as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Idol Wing, Chennai on 11.02.2012. Two individuals, Mr. R. Venkataraman and Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, filed petitions in the High Court seeking the transfer of idol theft investigations from the HR & CE Department to the Idol Wing, and from the Idol Wing to the Crime Branch, respectively. The High Court, during the proceedings, noted the difficulties faced by the Idol Wing and directed the state government to provide necessary infrastructure and support. The High Court also directed that Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel should continue to head the Idol Wing, even after his transfer. The Director General of Police challenged this order in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction regarding the transfer of the officer. Subsequently, the state government issued an order to transfer the cases to the CBI, which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court quashed this order and appointed Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel as a Special Officer to head the Idol Wing after his superannuation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Madras High Court initially heard petitions (Crl.O.P. No. 8960 of 2017 and Crl.O.P. No. 12060 of 2017) regarding the transfer of idol theft investigations. The High Court noted the difficulties faced by the Idol Wing and directed the state government to provide necessary infrastructure and support. The High Court also directed that Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel should continue to head the Idol Wing, even after his transfer. The Director General of Police challenged this order in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s direction regarding the transfer of the officer. Subsequently, the state government issued an order to transfer the cases to the CBI, which was challenged in the High Court. The High Court quashed this order and appointed Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel as a Special Officer to head the Idol Wing after his superannuation. The State of Tamil Nadu then appealed to the Supreme Court against this decision.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which grants the High Courts the power to issue writs, directions, and orders. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, governs the administration of temples and their properties in Tamil Nadu. The Police Act, 1861, Sections 3 and 4, outlines the powers of the Superintendent of Police, which the state argued was being usurped by the High Court’s order. The All India Services Act, 1951, and the rules made thereunder, including the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, govern the service conditions of officers of the Indian Police Service (IPS). The court also considered the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) regarding the powers of a police officer to investigate, arrest, and submit charge sheets.

Arguments

Arguments by the State of Tamil Nadu:

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by appointing a retired police officer as a Special Officer.
• A retired police officer cannot exercise the powers of a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The State Government was justified in transferring the investigation to the CBI for a fair investigation.
• The High Court cannot take over the power of the Superintendent of Police conferred on the State Government under Sections 3 and 4 of the Police Act, 1861.
• The High Court’s directions were beyond the scope of Article 226.
• The State had already appointed an Additional Director General of Police to head the Idol Wing.

Arguments by the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu:

• The High Court erred in directing the continuation of respondent No.2 after superannuation.
• There were several complaints against respondent No.2, making him unsuitable to head the Idol Wing.
• The High Court’s judgment created a shield for respondent No.2, making him unaccountable.
• There was no challenge to the order posting an Additional Director General of Police to head the Idol Wing.
• The PIL petitioner and respondent No.2 were colluding.

Arguments by the applicant in I.A. No. 24724 of 2019:

• Respondent No.2 had constantly tried to malign and defame officers of the HR & CE Department.
• Several senior officers of HR & CE Department were arrested without any cogent grounds.
• The Commissioner’s letter dated 31.07.2018 highlighted the misdeeds of the Idol Wing.

Arguments by the respondent No.9:

• Respondent No.9 was unnecessarily impleaded in the writ petition and an incorrect allegation has been made against him.

Arguments by Elephant G. Rajendran (PIL petitioner):

• The High Court’s judgment was within the scope of Article 226.
• The PIL petitioner had done commendable public work.
• The complaints against respondent No.2 were deliberately obtained after the High Court’s judgment.
• The High Court has jurisdiction to direct the constitution of a Special Investigation Team headed by respondent No.2.
• The transfer of the investigation to the CBI was a ruse to remove respondent No.2.

Arguments by Traffic Dr. K.R. Ramaswamy (PIL petitioner):

• Free and fair trial is a fundamental right.
• Respondent No.2 was efficiently carrying out his duties since 2012.
• The decision to transfer the cases to CBI was taken in a hurried manner.
• The CBI had expressed its unwillingness to take up a large number of idol theft cases.

Rejoinder by the State of Tamil Nadu:

• The High Court cannot pass any order in violation of law.
• The State has no power to grant an extension of service to IPS Officers.
• Re-employment beyond the age of superannuation is not permissible.
• The directions in the impugned order are contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the State of Tamil Nadu was justified in transferring all the under investigation cases being investigated by the Special Team constituted for Idol theft cases and all such future cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation vide its G.O. dated 01.08.2018?
2. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30.11.2018 quashing the Government Order dated 01.08.2018 is sustainable?
3. Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can appoint a police officer after his superannuation to head a Special Investigation Team (S.I.T.) to carry out investigations and other functions, which can be exercised by a police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure?
4. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30.11.2018 directing respondent No.2 to continue to head the Idol Wing of C.I.D. after his superannuation on 30.11.2018 is sustainable?
5. Whether the 10 directions issued by the High Court in Paragraph No.45 of the impugned judgment are contrary to law and are unsustainable being beyond the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
6. Whether the High Court could have declared the Government Order dated 29.11.2018 appointing Thiru. Abhay Kumar Singh, IPS, Additional Director General of Police, Idol Wing – C.I.D., Chennai as redundant without there being any challenge to the said Government Order before the High Court in the Writ Petitions, in question?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Dwaraka Nath vs. Income-tax Officer, [AIR 1966 SC 81], Rohtas Industries Ltd. And another vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and others, [(1976) 2 SCC 82], and Air India Statutory Corporation and others vs. United Labour Union and others, [(1997) 9 SCC 377], to explain the wide powers of the High Court under Article 226.
• The Court used Vineet Narain and others vs. Union of India and another, [(1998) 1 SCC 226], to highlight that the Court can monitor criminal investigations.
• The Court referred to M.C. Mehta and another vs. Union of India and others, [1987 (1) SCC 395], to emphasize the nature of PIL and the Court’s power to devise procedures.
• The Court cited Guruvayoor Devaswom Managing Committee and another vs. C.K. Rajan and others, [(2003) 7 SCC 546], to note the principles of PIL.
• The Court considered Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma and Ors. Vs. Kisan Baburao Hazare and Ors., [2004 (3) MhLJ 760], R. Sankarasubbu vs. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai, [2013 (1) CTC 1], Advocates Association, Bangalore vs. Union of India and others, [(2013) 10 SCC 611], and SUNITA DEVI AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, [(2018) 3 SCC 664], to show instances where High Courts and the Supreme Court have appointed SITs with retired officers.
• The Court mentioned Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar and others, [2014 (7) SCC 385], where a suggestion to include a retired IPS officer was not accepted, but clarified that each case has its own facts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and thorough investigation into the idol theft cases. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu and the necessity of having a competent and impartial team to investigate these cases. The Court was also swayed by the fact that the State Government’s decision to transfer the cases to the CBI was taken in a hurried manner, without proper inquiry, and after the High Court had already constituted a SIT. The Court also considered the fact that the CBI had expressed its unwillingness to take up a large number of idol theft cases. The High Court’s finding that Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel had done commendable work in the past also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to uphold his appointment as a Special Officer.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• ✓ The need to protect the ancient idols and cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu.
• ✓ The importance of an impartial and thorough investigation.
• ✓ The hurried and uninformed decision of the State Government to transfer the cases to CBI.
• ✓ The CBI’s unwillingness to take up a large number of idol theft cases.
• ✓ The commendable work done by Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel in the past.
• ✓ The High Court’s wide powers under Article 226 to ensure justice.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts have wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue directions to ensure justice.
• ✓ High Courts can appoint retired police officers to head Special Investigation Teams (SITs) in appropriate cases.
• ✓ The State Government cannot transfer investigations to the CBI without proper inquiry and justification.
• ✓ The protection of cultural heritage and ancient idols is of paramount importance.
• ✓ The State Government should ensure that all departments cooperate with the SIT in its investigation.

Directions

The Supreme Court modified the High Court’s judgment to the following extent:

• Direction No. 9 issued by the High Court was deleted.
• Direction No. 3 was modified to allow the State to fix an honorarium for the Special Officer.
• Direction No. 4 was modified to require reports to be submitted to the Additional Director General of Police, with reports to the High Court only when further directions are required.
• The observation that the Government order dated 29.11.2018 was redundant was set aside.

Specific Amendments Analysis

The judgment did not discuss any specific amendments.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts, under Article 226 of the Constitution, possess the authority to appoint retired police officers to head Special Investigation Teams (SITs) to ensure justice, particularly in cases involving significant public interest. This judgment clarifies the extent of the High Court’s powers in such matters and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to appoint a retired officer, thereby reinforcing the principle that constitutional courts can adopt innovative approaches to ensure justice. There is no change in the previous position of law but it clarifies the scope of the High Court’s powers under Article 226.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Elephant G. Rajendran partly allowed the appeals, upholding the appointment of Mr. A.G. Ponn Manickavel as a Special Officer tohead the Idol Wing but modifying some of the directions issued by the High Court. The Court emphasized the wide powers of the High Court under Article 226 to ensure justice and the importance of protecting the cultural heritage of Tamil Nadu. The judgment reaffirms the principle that constitutional courts can adopt innovative approaches to ensure justice and that the State Government cannot transfer investigations to the CBI without proper inquiry and justification. The case is a significant example of the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability and protecting public interest.