SC scraps prosecution of ex-IPS officer, cites violation of natural justice
The top court strongly criticised the conduct of the special NDPS judge, berating him for acting in a “predetermined manner” and violating due process
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday underlined the foundational principles of natural justice and fair trial as it quashed the prosecution of a former Haryana woman Indian Police Service (IPS) officer in a case related to the alleged wrongful implication of three individuals in a drugs case.
The bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan strongly criticised the conduct of the special judge under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, berating him for acting in a “predetermined manner” and violating due process.
Bharti Arora, who served as superintendent of police (SP) in Kurukshetra at the relevant time, faced trial under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. The bench found procedural lapses and a disregard for fundamental legal norms in her prosecution, ultimately ruling the proceedings unsustainable in law.
Arora opted for voluntary retirement from the IPS in 2021 when she was posted as the inspector general of police (IGP), Ambala range.
The apex court reserved particularly harsh words for the special NDPS judge, noting the “lightning speed” with which he concluded Arora’s trial even after receiving his transfer order.
Highlighting the irregularities, the court stated: “The learned special judge acted in a predetermined manner. Though the judgment and order of conviction/acquittal dated 22nd/24th February 2007 was challenged in an appeal and admitted, the special judge proceeded as if the judgment had become final. This reflects total non-application of mind.”
The court expressed dismay at the judge’s decision to dictate and type an order on May 30, 2008, keep it in a sealed cover and leave it for his successor to pronounce. Such actions, the bench noted, were a complete departure from the principles of natural justice.
The bench stressed that no notice or opportunity to be heard was provided to Arora before adverse findings were recorded against her.
“The learned special judge, without even giving notice to her, only on the basis of the arguments advanced at the stage of final hearing of the matter, made adverse observations against her by almost finding her guilty of the offence punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, while doing so, neither any notice nor was any opportunity of being heard given to her,” the court said.
After the judgment of February 24, 2007, the judge issued a notice to Arora on February 26, 2007. Though she filed a response and approached the high court, the special judge pressed ahead, scheduling seven hearings in ten days in May 2008, even as his transfer orders required him to relinquish his post.
The Supreme Court also discussed the provisions of Section 69 of the NDPS Act, which grants immunity to officers for actions performed in good faith under the Act. Stressing the significance of the provision, the bench held: “The presumption of good faith can only be dislodged by cogent and clinching material. A decision that appears incorrect is not necessarily malicious or devoid of good faith. The act must show an unreasonable motive to strip an officer of immunity.”
The judgment further reinforced a core tenet of justice: “Justice should not only be done but should be seen to be done.” It proceeded to quash the proceedings against Arora, including the special judge’s order dated May 30, 2008, and the observations made against her in the February 2007 judgment.
Recommended Topics