SRI ADARSH G.K. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

The petitioner claiming to be the General Secretary

of Human Rights Defenders Forum, Bengaluru - 560 002,

filed this petition to (i) quash Government Order dated

27.05.2014, whereby the 3rd respondent was appointed as

the Member of State Police Complaints Authority (for short

''SPCA''), from the Civil Society and (ii) strike down Section

20-C of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 amended as per

Karnataka Act No.30 of 2012 with effect from 09.08.2012.

Sri G.R. Mohan, learned advocate submitted

that the petitioner gives up the challenge to the validity of

the amendment made to Section 20-C of the Karnataka

Police Act, 1963 as per Karnataka Act No.30 of 2012. In

view of the submission made, it is unnecessary to consider

the 2nd prayer, noticed supra.

Sri G.R. Mohan, submitted that the 3rd

respondent, being an eminent Doctor, in view of his

professional engagements will be unable to devote his time

as a Member of the SPCA. He submitted that the 3rd

respondent is the Chairman of Medical Advisory Board and

he is also the Medical Director of Manipal Health

Enterprises, where his service is required on day to day

basis and on account of the same, he will be unable to do

justice to the citizens, who approach SPCA for redressal of

the grievance.

On the other hand, Sri A.G. Shivanna, learned

Additional Advocate General submitted that the committee

constituted to recommend panel of names from among the

members of the Civil Society for nomination to the SPCA

having met on 03.02.2014, recommended a panel of four

names for considering one among the panel to be

nominated as the Member of SPCA and having regard to

the same, in pursuance of Section 20-C of the Karnataka

Police (Amendment) Act, 2012, Government of Karnataka,

appointed the 3rd respondent as Member of SPCA, from

Civil Society. He submitted that the 3rd respondent

possesses the required qualification and there being no

infirmity in the said appointment, there is no merit in the

writ petition. He further submitted that the 3rd respondent

has made himself available at all meetings of the SPCA

from 27.05.2014 and his professional engagements have

not come in the way of his functioning as the Member of

the SPCA, from Civil Society.

Sri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior

Advocate submitted that the 3rd respondent apart from

achieving excellence in the field of Medicine is also a

Rajyotsava awardee, conferred by the Government of

Karnataka for his outstanding service in the field of

Medicine and Nephrology. He submitted that after the

order vide Annexure-F was issued, the 3rd respondent

being conscious of the importance of SPCA and his

responsibility as the Member attended the meetings of

SPCA in all honesty and sincerity and devoted the time and

energy without giving scope for any person to raise any

kind of objection. Learned Senior counsel submitted that

there being neither any arbitrariness nor illegality in the

matter of issuance of Government Order as at Annexure-F,

the petition is liable to be dismissed.

During the course of hearing, it was noticed

that the Government had not taken steps for constitution

of the District Police Complaints Authorities (for short

''DPCA'') and there was deficiency in the matter of

providing infrastructure to both SPCA and DPCAs. In

number of DPCAs, the Members had not been appointed

and infrastructure was not made available. Hence, several

orders were passed from time to time in this petition. As

of now, the DPCAs have become functional and SPCA

which had not submitted even the annual report, prepared

the annual reports and submitted the same to the

Government. The directions issued from time to time

commencing from 02.09.2014 have been implemented by

the State Government.

The SPCA should perform its functions by

keeping in view the object behind its establishment and

should supervise, monitor and control the functioning of

DPCAs. As the teething problems have been taken care of

and the SPCA and DPCAs have been made fully functional

to achieve the object as was expected by the Apex Court in

the case of PRAKASH SINGH AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

AND OTHERS, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 1 and having regard

to the passage of time i.e., from the date Annexure-F was

issued, there is no justification to quash Annexure-F.

However, the petitioner having highlighted the

inadequacies in the matter of constitution of SPCA and

establishment and functioning of DPCAs, has rendered

social service for the benefit of the citizens. In the

circumstances, it can be expected that the Government

would utilize the honorary service of the petitioner in

matters relating to safeguarding of human rights or in the

matter of appointment in future as a Member of

SPCA/DPCA, from the Civil Society.

In view of the foregoing, the petition is disposed of,

with no order as to costs.