Court On Its Own Motion vs Union Of India & Ors
2015 Latest Caselaw 3803 Del

$~31.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        W.P.(C) No.4758/2015
         COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION                              ..... Petitioner
                       Through:

                                    versus

         UNION OF INDIA & ORS                          ..... Respondents
                       Through:        Ms. Shweta & Ms. Divya Sudan,
                                       Proxy Counsels.
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                      ORDER

% 13.05.2015

1. We have taken suo motu cognizance of the incident reported in the

news media of a Traffic Policeman, in retaliation, hurling a brick at a

woman in the Golf Links area on 11th May, 2015.

2. Union of India, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and the Police Commissioner

of Delhi have been impleaded by us as respondents no.1 to 3 and advance

intimation of listing of this petition was given to the Standing Counsels.

3. Ms. Shweta, Proxy Counsel appearing for the Union of India and

Delhi Police has handed over a Status Report on behalf of Delhi Police with

respect to the said incident and which is taken on record. It is reported that,

(i) a criminal case has been registered against the concerned Traffic

Policeman; (ii) medical examination of the lady concerned has been got

done and the injuries suffered by the lady have been reported to be simple;

(iii) the concerned Traffic Policeman was arrested and has been sent to

judicial custody till 26th May, 2015; and, (iv) the concerned Traffic

Policeman has been dismissed from service under Article 311 (2)(b) of the

Constitution of India.

4. What has been reported in the Status Report had already been

reported by the news media and we have taken suo motu cognizance of the

matter not for the reason of finding the police authorities wanting in any

respect with respect to the incident but being concerned with the larger

implications/picture which has acquired alarming proportions. The subject

incident has merely acted as a precursor for this Court to take suo motu

cognizance thereof.

5. The incidents of what has come to be known as "road rage" in the city

are now on the rise and are being reported regularly. Commuters, on the

smallest of the provocation, are known to have hit out at their fellow

commuters violently, sometimes also fatally. Everyone on the road appears

to be on a short fuse. No solution, at least to our knowledge, has been

proposed till now and in fact we are not even aware whether the issue is

being addressed by the Police or the other authorities concerned at all. Now,

we have a case where perhaps the traffic policeman also has displayed such

rage, rather than control the others.

6. The aforesaid is coupled with the image which the city Police has

with its citizens. It appears that the citizens have no faith or respect for the

police personnel and instead of treating them as an ally or a friend or as

someone to turn to in case of need, treat them as a foe and fear them.

Though, some efforts are made by the Police through the media to portray a

friendly and helpful face of the Police but the same have obviously not

yielded any result. The Supreme Court in Daroga Singh Vs. B.K. Pandey

(2004) 5 SCC 26 lamented that the Police has not been able to shake off the

legacy of suspicion and dislike and change the attitude / trait of hostility

with the people, which though was understandable in the British Raj but

uncalled for in a democracy. We are again not aware whether the authorities

concerned are looking into the said aspect at all.

7. Managing the movement of pedestrians and vehicles on the roads,

with the size and capacity of the roads remaining the same and the number

of users thereof increasing day by day, requires the matter to be looked at

differently and scientifically. Again, at least to our knowledge there is no

step being taken in the said direction.

8. We are no longer living in an era where the government or

governmental agencies are relieved of their obligation merely by

constructing the roads and the pavements for use of the citizens. Once the

number of users of the road is more than what the roads and the pavements

were meant for, the matter requires special knowledge and effort for

managing the vehicular and pedestrian movement on the road. Perhaps the

same will have the effect of, reducing the commuting time, smoother

movement and resultantly less altercations and less incidents of road rage.

9. At the same time it is also not as if it is the governmental agencies and

the government employees alone who are responsible for maintaining peace

and sanity on the roads. The founding fathers of our Constitution, besides

incorporating therein the Directive Principles of State Policy, also listed the

duties of every citizen of India. To abide by the Constitution i.e. the laws

and respect its ideals and institutions, to promote harmony and the spirit of

common brotherhood, to safeguard public property and to abjure violence,

are some of the Fundamental Duties prescribed in Article 51A of the

Constitution of every citizen of India. Alas! the citizens also appear to be

wanting in performance of their duties. Such a situation, if remains

unchecked, will snowball into a "jungle raj" with only the physically fittest

amongst us surviving.

10. The news clip of the incident shows that before the traffic policeman

hurled the brick at the woman, she hurled a brick at the Traffic Policeman‟s

motorcycle. A traffic policeman‟s vehicle, we presume, will qualify as

"public property". We are pained to see a citizen so behaving. The

Supreme Court recently in Ramlila Maidan Incident Vs. Home Secretary,

Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 1 observed that even if action of Police was

wrong in law, it gave no right to others to commit any offence. In the said

judgment, the principle of contributory / vicarious liability was evolved. Yet

recently, in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2014 (14) SCALE 59, Supreme

Court observed that a society expects responsibility and accountability from

the member and it desires that citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a

cherished social norm.

11. We have asked Mr. Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General of

India, though not appearing today but present in the Court, whether the

police has collected copies of the recordings of all the T.V. channels

covering the incident.

12. Similarly, however disgraceful the behaviour on the part of the citizen

was, the same ought not to have elicited a retaliation from the concerned

traffic policeman. One who is entrusted with the task of maintaining

discipline in the society must first be itself be disciplined. In an evaluation

of Indian Police after 50 years of independence, Sh. S.V.M. Tripathi, former

Director General of Police has observed that a sensitive police officer can

ensure justice and fairplay as no other public servant can. Citizens expect the

police as humane and efficient, professional and disciplined. Long back in

Bhim Singh, MLA Vs. State of J&K (1985) 4 SCC 677, Supreme Court had

observed that police officers as custodians of law and order should not flout

the laws by stooping to bizarre acts of lawlessness.

13. We would like the respondents to respond to our aforesaid views and

to place on record the measures if any taken to address the malady. The

counter affidavits be filed before the next date.

14. The respondents also need to look at the aspect of training and

counselling of police personnel. This Court as far back as in Baldev Band

Vs. U.O.I. MANU/DE/0018/1983 commented on the constraints and

difficulties under which the police has to perform. We would like the

respondents to respond thereto as well.

15. We clarify that , the fact that we have taken suo motu cognizance or

any of our observations herein are not to affect/influence the investigation in

the FIR stated to have been registered or any proceedings before any court in

relation thereto. We, in this proceeding are examining the larger issue as

aforesaid.

List on 5th August, 2015.

CHIEF JUSTICE

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

MAY 13, 2015 „pp‟