After a drunk police personnel appeared before a district court in Tamil Nadu to give evidence, the Madras High Court directed the state Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular requiring police personnel attending courts to wear appropriate uniform and maintain “absolute integrity, discipline and devotion to duty”.
In a ruling on July 14, a division bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar also said that if any police personnel, medical officer or any other government official appears before the court in a disorderly manner, the judicial officer concerned must report such conduct to the appropriate authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
“Such a careless attitude of coming to court in a drunken state must be viewed seriously. The administrative action is entirely based on preponderance of probability and his action has completely deteriorated the image of the police force in the courtroom and must be curbed, otherwise the misconduct committed by the defendant will destroy the entire police force,” the court said.
These directions came during the hearing of an appeal filed by a police constable in Arumugam, who challenged the disciplinary action taken against him over his conduct while appearing as an official witness before a judicial magistrate.
According to the court, Arumugam, who was then working as a special assistant inspector of police, appeared as a prosecution witness in 2014 before a judicial magistrate in a criminal case he investigated. During his testimony, the judge noticed “signs of intoxication,” including “the smell of alcohol, incoherent speech and screaming,” and ordered him to undergo a medical examination.
The doctor found that his breath smelled of alcohol and issued a “drunkenness certificate.” Following disciplinary proceedings, Arumugam was initially granted mandatory retirement. The penalty was later amended, allowing him to resume work, but with the suspension of annual bonuses for three years.
Arumugam appealed the disciplinary proceedings and punishment in the Supreme Court. In 2020, a single judge overturned the disciplinary action. The state subsequently appealed the order.
After accepting the appeal, the bench set aside the order of the single judge and upheld the disciplinary action.
The bench held that Arumugam’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct that undermined the dignity of the court and the image of the police force.
It noted that departmental proceedings were decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities and that misconduct of official witnesses could not be tolerated within the courtroom.
The court also said that judicial officials are obligated to report any indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behavior by official witnesses to the appropriate authority for appropriate disciplinary action.
In setting broader guidelines, the council said that official witnesses, especially police officers, are obligated to maintain decorum and discipline during court filings and to provide truthful evidence.
“Misconduct committed within the courtroom cannot be tolerated, under any circumstances,” the Supreme Court said.
The court directed the DGP to issue the circular within four weeks. It also directed the Registry of the Madras High Court to circulate the DGP’s instructions to all courts in Tamil Nadu to ensure uniform compliance with the norms laid down in the judgment.
