A two-judge bench consisting of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih described the police’s actions as “completely illegal.” However, they accepted the apologies of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), the Investigating Officer, and the Station House Officer involved, and subsequently dismissed the contempt notice.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court clarified that it is illegal for the police to file a charge-sheet when a court order prohibits any coercive action against an individual.
This clarification arose from a case where the Court had issued an interim order stating that “no further action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the First Information Report.”
However, the respondents claimed they interpreted this as meaning “no coercive action” specifically. Despite this, the Court closed contempt proceedings against certain Jharkhand police officials who had filed a charge-sheet against an accused protected by the order.
A two-judge bench consisting of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih described the police’s actions as “completely illegal.” However, they accepted the apologies of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), the Investigating Officer, and the Station House Officer involved, and subsequently dismissed the contempt notice.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam represented the petitioner, while Advocate Vishnu Sharma appeared for the State of Jharkhand.
The Court stated, “The apology tendered by the three officers is accepted, and no further action is called for against them. Hence, the contempt notice is discharged.”
The police officers had cited a directive issued on April 15, 2011, by the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Jharkhand. This directive suggested that a “no coercive action” order did not prevent the filing of a charge-sheet.
READ ALSO: “Prima facie, this is illegal”: Supreme Court Slams UP Police
The Supreme Court warned that any officer who files a charge-sheet under such circumstances risks contempt proceedings. The Court directed the state counsel to inform the ADGP of its observations and expected an immediate revision of the 2011 directive.
On August 18, 2023, during a hearing on a Special Leave Petition challenging a Jharkhand High Court order that refused to quash the case, the Supreme Court issued a notice to the state and ordered that “no further action shall be taken against the petitioner” concerning the FIR.
However, in a subsequent hearing on October 1, 2024, the Court reviewed an affidavit from the state government, affirmed by a DSP-level officer, and criticized the police’s conduct as “brazen.”
The Court noted that the charge-sheet filed after the interim order even referenced the Court’s directive. Filing and defending this charge-sheet constituted a “prima facie, wilful breach” of the August 18 order, leading to contempt notices against three officers.
The officers were instructed to appear in court, either in person or via video conferencing.
On November 4, the Court recorded that the accused officers had apologized but emphasized that their apologies would only be considered after they submitted affidavits explaining their actions.
