The Madras high court witnessed high drama on Wednesday when a vacation bench summoned a senior IPS officer of ADGP rank, A Arun, who now heads the state's directorate of vigilance and anti-corruption (DVAC), and made him wait in court throughout the day. The delay occurred because a court bailiff had to wait to deliver summons at the DVAC office.
Background of the Case
A vacation bench comprising Justice G R Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayanan had summoned Arun in connection with a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a builder detained under the Goondas Act. The detention order was passed when Arun was the Chennai city commissioner of police.
Court Proceedings
Although Arun was present on Wednesday morning, the bench passed over the matter to the afternoon, stating that its bailiff, sent to serve the summons at the DVAC director's office, was made to wait for more than two hours by clerical staff there. The bench also summoned the clerical staff member who allegedly delayed acceptance of the summons.
When the case was taken up again around 2:30 pm, Justice Swaminathan questioned the staff member over the delay. The judge asked, "How long did you make him wait? One hour? Don't lie. Say something. Vaayila enna kozhakattaiya vachiruka? (Have you stuffed your mouth with dumpling?)"
John Sathyan, representing Arun, intervened and submitted that Arun had assumed charge as director of the anti-corruption agency only that morning and was in a meeting with IGs and DIGs at the time.
Judge's Observations
The judge then observed that an 'atrocious' detention order had been passed against the builder under the Goondas Act and that the court intended to make serious observations against Arun. "We wanted to hear the officer before making any observations. We did not want to say a word against him in his absence," the judge said before passing over the matter once again.
Arun's Explanation
When the case was taken up later in the evening, Arun explained that the builder had cheated several homebuyers and forged the complainants' signatures as well. There was a public order disturbance as the homebuyers were holding protests. Nearly 200 people were affected by him, and five separate cases had been registered against the builder. "As a detaining authority, I issued the order on the basis of inputs from sponsoring officials, as required by law," Arun said.
Social Media Campaign
When the judge asked about adverse social media posts against the officer, Arun said that in his 28 years of service as an IPS officer, he always had field postings in every rank. During the course of his duty, he had proceeded against many criminals and scoundrels, who were now ganging up to launch a smear campaign against him online. Arun stated that government servants do not have a forum to counter such campaigns and that only the courts should come to the aid of government servants discharging their duties. Noting that not a single adverse remark or allegation had been recorded in his service history, Arun said the court could call for the record and check.
Court's Response
When John Sathyan submitted that the IPS officer had been subjected to undue criticism on social media, Justice Lakshminarayanan observed: "People abuse judges too. You should have shoulders broad enough to shrug them off." The bench reserved orders in the habeas corpus petition until Friday.
