What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
Two Delhi police officers have found themselves in hot water after speaking the truth in court, leading to their suspension and reassignment to district lines.
NEW DELHI: Two Delhi police officers have found themselves in hot water after speaking the truth in court, leading to their suspension and reassignment to district lines. The incident has ignited a debate surrounding the ethics of police officers in the courtroom.
Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) Shantanu faced the wrath of his superiors when he confessed in the Delhi High Court that he was not the Investigation Officer (IO) in a case he was representing. A source close to the matter stated, “Shantanu, the PSI, told the High Court that he had no knowledge of the case since he was not the designated IO but was instructed to appear on its behalf.”
READ MORE: Amit Shah’s birthday draws praise and PM Modi’s wishes
As a result of this revelation, the case was escalated to a Divisional Bench, and Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora was summoned to address the issue. Consequently, PSI Shantanu was promptly suspended by Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) South East, Rajesh Deo.
The suspension order, obtained by The New Indian, reads, “PSI Shantanu is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect without prejudice to the departmental action pending against him. During the first three months of his suspension, he will draw a subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary, which he would have drawn if he had been on leave on half average pay, and, in addition, a dearness allowance based on such leave salary. He will also draw other compensatory allowances, which he was drawing at the time of suspension.”
PSI Shantanu was previously stationed at the Amar Colony Police Station. In a related development, the Station House Officer (SHO) of the same station, Yogesh Singh, faced disciplinary action as he was also reassigned to district lines.
The controversy surrounding this incident stemmed from a contentious circular issued by the Delhi Police Headquarters. The circular instructed Sub Inspector (SI) level police officers to represent cases in court in the absence of the designated Investigation Officer (IO) but without revealing their non-IO status to the court.
The circular stated that any police official disclosing their non-IO status would be subject to a show cause notice for censure from the DCP. In response to this directive, Delhi Police Commissioner Sanjay Arora mandated all SHOs to ensure the presence of a new Sub Inspector (SI) as the IO in court proceedings when the actual IO was unavailable.
The notice also carried a warning that punitive measures would be taken against any IOs who confessed to not being the designated IO and being uninformed about the case. Furthermore, it clarified that not only IOs but also SHOs and Inspector Investigations could be held accountable.
READ MORE: J&K has received more electricity in the last 3 years than ever before: LG Sinha
The circular stressed the importance of briefing the assigned IO-Pairvi Officer about the case, even if the IO had retired, passed away, or was otherwise unavailable, to ensure they could adequately represent the case before the court and answer any questions posed by the court during proceedings.
This incident has sparked a debate about the ethical responsibility of police officers when testifying in court and the consequences they might face for revealing the truth in such situations.
