Kerala HC Clarifies Guidelines For Police Etiquette Over Arrests On Court Premises, Lays Down Two-Tier Grievance Redressal Mechanism
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 19) clarified guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons within court premises, along with a grievance redressal mechanism to be followed at the state and district levels. The court further made clarifications to the report prepared by the State Police Chief regarding a guideline on the code of conduct to be adhered to by...
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 19) clarified guidelines to be followed by police personnel for arresting persons within court premises, along with a grievance redressal mechanism to be followed at the state and district levels.
The court further made clarifications to the report prepared by the State Police Chief regarding a guideline on the code of conduct to be adhered to by Police personnel within court premises.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order in a suo motu case initiated by the Court to deal with the instances of violence by police against the legal fraternity after an alleged attack on a lawyer by police officers on the premises of Ramankary Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The case was initiated based on a letter to the Court by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA).
During the course of the proceedings, the Court had ascertained the need to formulate a code of conduct to regulate the conduct of law enforcement agencies in the court premises and other judicial authorities in the State.
It had directed the State Police Chief to draw a road map for further discussion after consulting with the Director General of Prosecution. The State Police Chief was instructed to get the suggestions of various stakeholders, namely, the Bar Council of Kerala and the President of the KHCAA.
On seeing the report, the Court had felt that there was a lack of the clarity to the term 'court premises' and had formed a committee, which was entrusted with the task of reviewing the report of the State Police Chief and giving suggestions to deal with the issue of lawyer-police conflict.
After considering the suggestions made thereafter, the Court opined that certain clarifications are needed over and above the statutory and administrative guidelines that are presently there. The clarifications are in addition to the guidelines in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, the Kerala Police Act, the Government Orders and Office Memorandum issued by the State Government and the judicial guidelines regarding arrest laid down in various judicial precedents.
Clarifying the meaning of court premises, the bench observed:
"“Court premises” shall be taken as referring to not just the courtrooms, but shall also include all lands, buildings and structures (except residential quarters) used in connection with court proceedings during the notified working hours of the court, or till the court is in session, whichever is later."
Regarding arrest of persons in court premises, the following guidelines were prescribed by the Court:
"i. Arrest, detention or apprehending any person in court premises during court hours shall, except in situations covered by clause (iii) below, be done only with prior intimation to the Presiding officer/jurisdictional court.
ii. Provided that any person who intends to surrender before court in connection with any crime either by himself or accompanying a lawyer/advocate shall not be arrested, apprehended or detained in court premises without prior permission of the Presiding officer/jurisdictional court.
iii. Police may arrest or use necessary force to arrest persons in court premises in emergent situations necessitating immediate action in order to prevent the occurrence of a cognizable offence within the court premises. Police can also arrest absconding persons/accused in long pending warrant matters in the court premises. However, intimation of arrest of persons in both of the aforementioned circumstances must be given to the presiding officer of the court immediately after the arrest."
In addition to the aforesaid clarifications, the Court also observed that there is a need for a two-tier grievance redressal mechanism at the State and District levels. It laid down the constitution of committees at the state and district levels for this purpose. At the first level, the grievances would be raised at the district committee and if it is not resolved, the same would be escalated to the state committee.
The constitution of the State-level committee includes the Advocate General of the State, the Director General of Police, three advocate members nominated by the High Court Bar Association (including its President), the Superintendent of Police of the area concerned, and the President of the Bar Association to which the complainant - advocate belongs (except the High Court Bar Association).
The Court clarified that if the allegations are made against the Superintendent of Police, any Police officer above the rank of the Superintendent of Police to be nominated by the Director General of Police) would form part of the committee.
The constitution of the district-level committee would include the Principal District Judge or the Judicial Officer nominated by the Principal District Judge, the District Police Chief, the District Government Pleader, the President, and a member nominated by the Bar Association in which the complainant - advocate is a member.
Thereafter, the Court directed the State Government to issue an Office Memorandum highlighting the clarifications to inform all the stakeholders about the order.
The writ petition would be listed again after two months.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 32952 of 2024