Court decisions can't be interpreted according to one's impulses: High Court

Srinagar, Jul 9: Underscoring that court verdicts cannot be permitted to be interpreted according to one's impulses or quirks, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh Wednesday  reprimanded a police officer for having teeth to say that if the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding arrest of a person involving punishment for offences less than seven years of imprisonment is to be followed in strict sense, then almost all the officers would be held liable for departmental action and contempt proceedings.

A bench of Vinod Chatterji Koul, while issuing a direction for personal appearance of SHO Police Station  Gandhi Nagar Jammu directed him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of the court.  The bench made clear that the Executive was under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation to comply with all the orders of the Courts.

“Shorn off further deliberation, it is made clear here that the Executive, including government, non-government functionaries and the police department is no exception to that, is under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to comply with all the orders of the Courts inasmuch as judicial orders are binding on the executive to uphold the rule of law,” the court said.

The bench underscored that each authority is duty-bound to comply with court orders and took strong exception to objections filed by the police officer to a 69-year-old  man's plea wherein he had alleged non-compliance of the directions contained in the Supreme Court judgment in the case titled Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others (2014).

The Supreme court judgment provides guidelines about unnecessary arrests in keeping with the mandate of Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

“...in the present case respondent (SHO) has not done so. Respondent has teeth to say that if the judgment of the Hon’ble court is to be followed in strict sense, then almost all the officers of the State would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment (rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, as well as punishment for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction),” the court said.

The court reproduced para  six of the objections filed by the police officer, which said: “That if the judgment of the Hon’ble court is to be followed in a strict sense, then almost all the officers of the state would be held liable under clause 11.5 of the judgment.”

The court observed that the words of the police officer do not need rocket science to understand, as it shows and reflects that he is least bothered about the Court orders.

“He should have been ashamed to say such words. If those words are taken as the official stand of the department in which he is working, then it reflects and suggests the approach of the department towards the Courts and the orders of the Courts,” the court said.

“When we go through the reply of the respondent (police officer), it again shows and reflects that the respondent has been made to believe that he is not required to comply with the Court orders but to follow his whims and caprices.” The court said that instead of initiating proceedings against the SHO, the department has permitted him to do whatever he would like to do.

“The respondent and the department cannot be permitted to interpret the directions of the Courts, the High Courts and the Supreme Court according to their impulses or quirks,” the court said.

While the court observed that all the citizens of India, the government or non-government organisations are under strict legal obligation to implement the Court orders word by word and letter by letter, it said “If respondent( police officer) or his department is not willing to implement and comply the orders of the Courts, the High Court and or the Supreme Court, then what will be the future of our children need not be elucidated here".

The court made it clear that the police officer was under legal, constitutional and statutory obligation and duty to implement the orders of the Courts.

The court observed that  if the police officer is not inclined to respect the Courts orders, he has to face the consequences, which include contempt of the Court, initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and payment of compensation to the petitioner

“For all that has been stated above, the respondent is held guilty of noncompliance of the directions contained in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others, 2014 (8) SCC 273, and, therefore, has committed contempt of the Court.”

The Court directed the SHO to appear before it on July 14 to show cause and explain why he should not be punished for contempt of the Court.

The court also asked the department concerned to initiate departmental action against the police officer for violation of the Supreme Court directions.  “Respondent is also liable to pay compensation. The amount of compensation to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner shall be decided and directed on the next date of hearing,” the court said and posted the matter for further hearing on July 14.