Published On: Mon, May 25th, 2015

Delhi ACB’s competence to act against cops can’t be decided without centre: HC

New Delhi: The key constitutional issue of competence of Delhi Anti-Corruption Branch to act against Delhi Police personnel under anti-graft law cannot be finally determined without the Centre’s participation but it proceeded with the case in its absence to avoid derailment of proceedings involving personal liberty of a person, the Delhi High Court said.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today said the Delhi High Court judgement that his government's Anti-Corruption Branch has the jurisdiction to arrest policemen is a "huge embarrassment" for the Centre.

Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal today said the Delhi High Court judgement that his government’s Anti-Corruption Branch has the jurisdiction to arrest policemen is a “huge embarrassment” for the Centre.

Justice Vipin Sanghi said he was informed that this issue is pending consideration before this Court in other proceedings and therefore he was proceeding with the case on “limited representation” only for deciding the bail plea of the policeman arrested by ACB and making the Home Ministry a party in the matter would lead to dragging of the case which would consume a lot of time.

“I proceed to deal with the aforesaid legal issue with regard to the competence of the ACB of GNCTD to act on the complaint of the complainant under the PC Act qua a Delhi Police personnel first. This is an important constitutional issue which has a bearing on the executive authority of the Union and the said issue cannot be finally determined without hearing the Union and examining its stand.

“However, the Union is not a party to these proceedings and the present proceeding being a bail application involving the personal liberty of the applicant, I do not consider it appropriate to allow these proceedings to get mired in a full-fledged hearing on this issue, after calling upon the Union of India to place their stand before this Court.

“Adopting that course of action would derail these proceedings and prejudice the personal liberty of the applicant as the final resolution of the issue would consume more time in hearing and in arriving at a decision.

“I am, therefore, proceeding to consider the merits of the submissions on this aspect on the basis of limited representation, only for the purpose of this case. I am also informed that this issue is pending consideration before this Court in other proceedings,” the judge said.

PTI

About the Author