Punjab and Haryana High Court: Maintaining public confidence requires police behavior

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared in a historic ruling that may significantly alter the way corruption cases against police officers are handled that the officers’ behavior should inspire faith and confidence in the system. The claim was made when the Bench rejected the appeal of a police officer.

The high court’s Justice Anoop Chitkara made it apparent that their actions must be a lighthouse fostering confidence in the system and highlighting the crucial role that law enforcement plays in upholding order.

The statement made by Justice Chitkara is important because it acknowledges the police as the state’s representatives as well as law enforcers, signifying power, responsibility, and deference.

The police are the state’s delegates and our law enforcement organization. Police officers are a representation of power, responsibility, and respect. Justice Chitkara decided that as they are in charge of maintaining peace and order, their actions must inspire trust in the system.

A Punjab Police inspector filed a request under Section 173 of the CrPC to have an FIR, the final investigation report, and his discharge plea dismissed. This resulted in the case being brought to Justice Chitkara’s attention.

During the hearing, Justice Chitkara’s Bench was informed that the incident was reported in November 2022 at the Vigilance Bureau police station, in accordance with the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Justice Chitkara said there was enough prima facie evidence against the petitioner at this point, citing a video recording that was filed against him and shown for the petitioner’s benefit. The footage revealed the official was requesting payment for the translation of certain papers.

According to Justice Chitkara, the petitioner’s attorney had to have cited the regulations that gave the investigators permission to demand money for the translation. “It is a matter of trial whether they could ask for the same under any rules, and it is insufficient to interfere with the criminal proceedings unless they specifically point to such rules.” Should the requested funds for translation, etc., not be considered a bribe, dishonest government workers may exploit this as a means to legally extract money from citizens. In rejecting the petition, Justice Chitkara said, “An allegation of demand for money for performing a public duty by any member of the police force, without any specific reference of any rules, is a subject matter of trial, where the malicious intent must also be proven.”