NEW DELHI: In a major relief to retired IPS officer Amod Kanth, the Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed petitions seeking to cancel the police medal awarded to him for his role in maintaining law and order during the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
The HC said the decision was taken and ratified by various authorities, including the PMO, and there was limited scope for judicial review of the same. However, the court strongly condemned the anti-Sikh riots and said it is arguable that "the State ought to display sensitivity to the feelings of the victim community and be circumspect in hastening to award gallantry medals to the officials of the law enforcement machinery soon after the events."
"Yet, the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. It is in the first place confined to examining the transgressions if any in the decision-making process. On this score, there is no scope for interference as far as the present case is concerned," the HC noted.
The HC added that "as regards the merits of the decision itself, it cannot be held that the material placed before the decision-making authority was not relevant to the grant of Police Medals to respondents (Kanth and the then SHO of Paharganj police station S S Manan)."
Amrik Singh Lovely and Trilok Singh had sought a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to withdraw the Police Medal for gallantry conferred on Kanth and Manan by a presidential notification on June 7, 1985.
"The court is satisfied the failure to consider the bail order, the CFSL reports and the fact that the accused belonged to same family did not, by itself, vitiate the decision to award Police Medals," HC observed in response to certain peculiar facts being brought to its attention by the petitioners.
Justice Muralidhar minced no words on the tragedy itself and said, "The role of the state machinery has come under critical scrutiny. It is arguable that in the context of a tragedy of such proportions, the state ought to display sensitivity to the feelings of victim community and be circumspect in hastening to award gallantry medals to the officials of the law enforcement machinery soon after the events." HC said that the 1984 riots in Delhi "have left deep scars in the collective memory of the nation, and especially of the Sikh community. Several Commissions of Inquiry have been constituted over the years to uncover the truth of the tragic events that transpired in the early days of November 1984 in which thousands of innocent persons were killed."
16 persons, including four minor and five women, of the family of Amrik and Trilok Singh were arrested on November 5, 1984, for allegedly opening fire on a mob which led to the killing of two men including an army jawan. It was alleged that police fabricated the story that the family members of petitioners were firing indiscriminately on the police, the army and the public at Paharganj area here.
But HC rejected this argument and pointed that "the context for the decision to award the medals was the courage and gallantry displayed by the policemen. The petitioners' version of the incident does not negate the presence of respondent (Kanth and Manan) or their efforts at controlling the situation," the court said.
The HC said the decision was taken and ratified by various authorities, including the PMO, and there was limited scope for judicial review of the same. However, the court strongly condemned the anti-Sikh riots and said it is arguable that "the State ought to display sensitivity to the feelings of the victim community and be circumspect in hastening to award gallantry medals to the officials of the law enforcement machinery soon after the events."
"Yet, the scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. It is in the first place confined to examining the transgressions if any in the decision-making process. On this score, there is no scope for interference as far as the present case is concerned," the HC noted.
The HC added that "as regards the merits of the decision itself, it cannot be held that the material placed before the decision-making authority was not relevant to the grant of Police Medals to respondents (Kanth and the then SHO of Paharganj police station S S Manan)."
Amrik Singh Lovely and Trilok Singh had sought a direction to the Ministry of Home Affairs to withdraw the Police Medal for gallantry conferred on Kanth and Manan by a presidential notification on June 7, 1985.
"The court is satisfied the failure to consider the bail order, the CFSL reports and the fact that the accused belonged to same family did not, by itself, vitiate the decision to award Police Medals," HC observed in response to certain peculiar facts being brought to its attention by the petitioners.
Justice Muralidhar minced no words on the tragedy itself and said, "The role of the state machinery has come under critical scrutiny. It is arguable that in the context of a tragedy of such proportions, the state ought to display sensitivity to the feelings of victim community and be circumspect in hastening to award gallantry medals to the officials of the law enforcement machinery soon after the events." HC said that the 1984 riots in Delhi "have left deep scars in the collective memory of the nation, and especially of the Sikh community. Several Commissions of Inquiry have been constituted over the years to uncover the truth of the tragic events that transpired in the early days of November 1984 in which thousands of innocent persons were killed."
16 persons, including four minor and five women, of the family of Amrik and Trilok Singh were arrested on November 5, 1984, for allegedly opening fire on a mob which led to the killing of two men including an army jawan. It was alleged that police fabricated the story that the family members of petitioners were firing indiscriminately on the police, the army and the public at Paharganj area here.
But HC rejected this argument and pointed that "the context for the decision to award the medals was the courage and gallantry displayed by the policemen. The petitioners' version of the incident does not negate the presence of respondent (Kanth and Manan) or their efforts at controlling the situation," the court said.
No comments:
Post a Comment