Whether vigilance cell of high court can be treated as police station?

If the Vigilance Cell were to be treated as a 'police station' and the Deputy Superintendent of Police/Registrar General were to be treated as SHO, it should have been declared generally or specially by the State Government to be a police station and no such notification is forthcoming. Even otherwise, in view of ensuring the independence of the judiciary and protection of judiciary from executive interference, the State Government cannot declare the Vigilance Cell of the High Court as a 'police station' and this can be done only if the High Court wants the State Government to do so. Just because the police officers and officials have been posted to the Vigilance Cell, it will not clothe the State Government with any power to declare it as a police station.

Karnataka High Court

Sharanappa S/O Veeranna Sajjan vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2015

Author: A.V.Chandrashekara

Citation;2016 CRLJ764 KARNAT                        

Print Page

When evidence collected unilaterally by Vigilance Cell/Authority/Officer, can be used against claimant?

The Scrutiny Committee must give all opportunities to the
affected person. The evidence collected unilaterally by the Vigilance
Cell/Authority/Officer, if used against the claimant, all opportunities
be given to deal with the same. How the unilaterally collected
material be used against the party/claimant, when deciding legal and
Constitutional rights. The principle of natural justice needs to be
followed, in case of no specific rules. The opportunity needs to be
given to the person/claimant to rebut the presumption of decision of
Scrutiny Committee, if any, especially when against the Scrutiny
Committee order, the Writ Petitions are filed, and the Writ Court
under Articles 226 and 227, are required to go into the details of the
disputed question of fact and documents, though writ jurisdiction and
its scope is limited. The decision is required to be considered in Writ
Petition like Appellate Authority. The Writ Court needs to examine the
case on merits also, including the Vigilance Cell report, which just
cannot be overlooked.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7343 OF 2013
Madhuri Nitin Jadhav,
Vs.
 State of Maharashtra, through its


CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 26 FEBRUARY 2014.
Citation;2015(2)ALLMR200

Print Page