Recently, the Supreme Court quashed the prosecution of a former Haryana IPS officer in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, citing violations of natural justice and procedural lapses. The Court observed that the special NDPS judge had acted in a “predetermined manner” and failed to uphold due process, undermining the principles of fair trial.
The case involved Bharti Arora, a former IPS officer who served as Superintendent of Police (SP) in Kurukshetra during the relevant period. She was accused under Section 58 of the NDPS Act for allegedly wrongfully implicating three individuals in a drug-related case. The trial court initiated proceedings against her despite apparent procedural lapses and a disregard for natural justice. The allegations against Arora were brought to trial under the NDPS Act, but her prosecution was marked by irregularities, including the issuance of a notice after the judgment was passed and the rapid scheduling of hearings by the special judge, even after he had received his transfer orders. Arora, who had taken voluntary retirement from the IPS in 2021, challenged the proceedings as being in violation of established legal norms.
Arora contended that the proceedings against her were conducted in violation of natural justice. She argued that she was not given an opportunity to present her case or respond to the allegations before adverse findings were recorded. Additionally, she pointed out that the special judge’s actions, including dictating and typing orders in advance and sealing them for later pronouncement, were highly irregular and prejudicial. Whereas, the prosecution maintained that the special judge’s findings were valid and claimed that Arora’s actions as an IPS officer were not protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act, which provides immunity for acts performed in good faith. They argued that the case warranted prosecution under the NDPS Act provisions.
The Apex Court strongly criticized the conduct of the special NDPS judge, stating that his actions demonstrated a “predetermined manner” of adjudication. The bench noted the judge’s failure to follow due process and emphasized that procedural fairness is a cornerstone of justice, held that “The learned special judge acted in a predetermined manner. Though the judgment and order of conviction/acquittal dated 22nd/24th February 2007 was challenged in an appeal and admitted, the special judge proceeded as if the judgment had become final. This reflects total non-application of mind”.
The Court was particularly concerned about the judge’s decision to dictate and type an order on May 30, 2008, seal it, and leave it for his successor to pronounce. Such actions, the bench remarked, were a significant departure from the principles of natural justice and fairness. The bench highlighted that no notice or opportunity to be heard was given to Arora before adverse findings were made, stating that “The learned special judge, without even giving notice to her, only on the basis of the arguments advanced at the stage of final hearing of the matter, made adverse observations against her by almost finding her guilty of the offence punishable under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. Moreover, while doing so, neither any notice nor was any opportunity of being heard given to her”.
The Court also examined Section 69 of the NDPS Act, which grants immunity to officers for actions performed in good faith under the Act. The bench clarified, “The presumption of good faith can only be dislodged by cogent and clinching material. A decision that appears incorrect is not necessarily malicious or devoid of good faith. The act must show an unreasonable motive to strip an officer of immunity”. The judgment reinforced the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.
The Top Court quashed the proceedings against Bharti Arora, including the special judge’s order dated May 30, 2008, and the adverse observations made in the February 2007 judgment. The Court held that the actions of the special judge undermined the principles of natural justice and due process, rendering the prosecution unsustainable in law.
Picture Source :
