Karnataka HC Dismisses PIL For Action Against Alleged Police Atrocities During Lockdown

Overview of the Petition

• A Public Interest Litigation was filed by Advocate S. Balakrishnan seeking directions to concerned Police Officials to register FIR against the police officers who allegedly committed atrocities against the lockdown violators.
• The writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution prayed that Respondents (State of Karnataka, Inspector General and Director General of Police, and Commissioner of Police) be ordered to direct the concerned SHOs to register FIR against erring police officials within who jurisdiction the offenses are committed.
• The petition also prayed to direct the Respondents to HOD disciplinary proceedings against the police officials irrespective of their ranks in the hierarchy within the department and punish them as per the law and etc.
• The PIL was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court on the grounds that it was frivolous and contained unsubstantiated allegations.

Court’s Order

• The Karnataka High Court Bench of Hon’ble Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that nothing has been brought on record in respect of the alleged police atrocities except for bald statements in the writ petition. The Court held the PIL filed by the lawyer as frivolous.
• The Hon’ble Court further added that there was no documentary proof of the atrocitis committed by the police and in case even a stray incident has taken place, the aggrieved person has the right to file an FIR.
• The Court also held that, the petitioner being an advocate is fully aware of the process of filing an FIR and knows that in case if the police is not registering a case, he has the remedy of filing a complaint u/s 200 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
• The Hon’ble Bench held that the police force and other frontline workers all over the country have been working day and night despite the covid-19 pandemic and are exposed to the virus more than the common man and are still carrying their duties and responsibilities religiously.
• The Court didn’t rule out the possibility of one or two cases of atrocities but held that there is a remedy available under law for filing a complaint under the CrPC.
• The Hon’ble Court criticised the reference of lathi charge over LalaLajpat Rai and held that the freedom of struggle cannot be compared to the lockdown imposed due to the pandemic.
• Taking note of the number police personnel succumbed to the virus and referring to the judgment in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Court held that a frivolous PIL containing unsubstantiated allegation deserves to be dismissed in order to preserve the purity and sanctity of PILs.
• The PIL was accordingly dismissed and a cost of Rs. 1,000 was imposed on the petitioner which is to be deposited with Karnataka Legal Service Authority within 30 days.

What do you think of this matter?