A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

Must Read

What is the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“RERA”) is an Act of the Parliament. It seeks to protect...

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

“Pro-Enforcement Bias” Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards Domestically, in light of Vijay Karia and Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L and Ors.

International Arbitration faces challenges domestically due to unharmonized local laws for enforcement. Often it may occur that an award...

Follow us

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was taken after a deadly attack on the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) president’s car. These IPS officers were responsible for providing security to the latter. As WB soon to witness elections, politics has pervaded the environment. The ruling party, Trinamool Congress (TMC) has refused to obey the orders of MHA. It has also alleged that the center is misusing the emergency powers. Party said that such a move is a flagrant attack on Indian federalism. In this article, we will take due insights into the subjects involved and the solution possible. 

Understanding the Problems

The state of WB is going to have state assembly elections in 2021. For this, each party is competing to strengthen their political base in the state. TMC is the ruling party in the state whereas BJP is ruling the center. BJP’s national president J.P Nadda was on a political visit to the state. When traveling to Diamond Harbor, some people started pelting stones on his congregation. His staff has sustained a few injuries. Later on, the WB Police tweeted negating the occurrence of any such attack. This further infuriated the Centre which would have anticipated a responsible response. 

This attack was castigated by BJP as a “disgusting” practice of an “autocratic” TMC. The incident has manifold political biases and therefore couldn’t be divorced in the public domain. Between abuses and accusations, a legal step was taken by the Central government. The MHA summoned the officers involved in the security of J.P Nadda and ordered their deputation in Delhi. The officers are Bholanath Pandey (SP, Diamond Harbor), Rajeev Mishra (ADG, South Bengal), and Praveen Tripathi (DIG, Presidency Range). The center has already provided their positions in Delhi. The deputation shall be of five years for Tripathi and Mishra and of four years for Pandey.

Such a move was called out as “illegal” by the WB Chief Minister Mamta Banerjee. Let us delve into the legal aspects now.

What is the Legality of Such Transfer?

MHA cited its powers under the IPS Cadre rules, 1954 to depute the officers. The rules vest power with both states and centers to depute the officers. Rule 6 says that in case of any disagreement, the center’s power shall prevail. The state government shall be bound by the orders of MHA. The deputation is therefore legal. The central government, though, cannot penalize the civil servants posted under the State government. Rule 7 of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 says that an action against the civil servants, both center and state need to agree. The deputation, but, is not a punitive action. But can the centre “force” the state to send officers? The subject is not clear but the precedents answer is negative. 

In 2001, a similar kind of situation happened. The then central government summoned the IPS officers of the state of Tamil Nadu. But the state refused to send the officers. Even after repeated calls from MHA, the state government denied any compliance. The same kind of tactic has been displayed by Mamta Banerjee. She has also refused to send her officers. Both Tamil Nadu and WB have received support from other states in their attempt to “strengthening federalism”. The exercise of Rule 6 is thereby severely halted. 

In 2017, IPS Archana Ramasundaram had won a long legal battle against the Tamil Nadu government’s “disciplinary action” against her. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) ruled in her favour. Archana was suspended by the Tamil Nadu government after she joined the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The state govt. wanted her to serve in the state only. Centre denied approving any such suspension. Tamil Nadu moved Delhi HC against the centre. The court rejected the plea of the state. Meanwhile, Archana won the case in CAT and the suspension was quashed. 

This, however, is an emergency provision and has been very rarely used by the center. This is the first such exercise after the 2001 crisis.  The states with very disturbing law and order situations have seen such discords. The rules also do not provide any per se existence of an emergency. Thus, the center need not provide a rationale behind its decision. But, as said above, the center does not have any power to reprimand the state for not following its orders. 

Does Such a Deputation Attack Indian Federalism?

In the opinion of the author, it does not. Indian federalism is different from “absolute federalism”. India is a quasi-federal country. Our constitution is deeply inclined towards a strong center. It furthers the India of the “union of states” and not a federation. All-important subjects are put inside the Union List and States are given somewhat lesser powers. Secondly, when it comes to uniform laws, states should be bound by the central commands. As IPS Cadre rules, 1954 apply uniformly throughout India, a harmonious implementation requires strong central command.

Conclusion

Law and Order have for long been a serious issue in the WB. Human Rights Commissions have consistently remanded the state to maintain peace. The civil servants -IAS, IPS, and IFS-form the bedrock of the Indian administration. Their above-board conduct is essential for Indian executives to function. Thus, to maintain such transparency, the central rules and regulations are formed. But to avoid any collusion of state and center, CAT is given the responsibility to hear the cases. As in both the cases discussed above, CAT generally decides cases on facts. There is very little to be discussed on the law as they are silent on any such confrontation. In any case, central is presumed to be a superseding state. This was done in the case of Tamil Nadu in 2001 as well as in IPS Archana’s case. The WB govt. by denying sending the officers has created yet another conundrum. There are chances that the matter is placed before the CAT. The WB also reached the Supreme Court. Looking at the prospect, the Supreme Court would direct the state to the appropriate authority- the CAT. Hence, another fierce litigation in CAT is highly anticipated. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

[WhatsApp Privacy Policy Row] It’s a Private App, Don’t Use It; Says Delhi High Court

On Monday, while hearing a petition regarding the privacy policy of WhatsApp, the Delhi High Court said, “It is a private app. Don't join it. It is a voluntary thing, don't accept it. Use some other app.”

Madras High Court Asks the State To Reconsider Number of Seats Allotted for Bcm Category

Mr. Shakkiya filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to issue a Writ of Mandamus. The petition sought to direct...

Gujarat High Court Directs To Register Name of Petitioners in the Society Records as Owners of Property, as per Will

A single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Justice Biren Vaishnav, because probate wasn’t necessary and that the petitioners were entitled to...

If No Complaint Is Filed, No Further Orders Are Required To Be Passed: Telangana High Court

Excerpt In Matlakunta Sundaramma vs The State Of Telangana, on January 8, 2021, the Telangana High Court decided that there is no requirement of passing...

Gujarat High Court Allows Report Filed by Official Liquidator for Dissolution of the Company

The present report had been filed by the Official Liquidator for the dissolution of M/s AtRo Limited under the provisions of Section 497 (6)...

Parents of Road Accident Victim Entitled To Compensation: Delhi High Court

Justice JR Midha said, “Even if parents are not dependent on their children at the time of an accident, they will certainly be dependent, both financially and emotionally, upon them at the later stage of their life, as the children were dependent upon their parents in their initial years.”

Plea Challenging the AIBE Rules Framed by BCI Filed in the Supreme Court

A Writ Petition was presently filed in the Supreme Court by a newly enrolled lawyer challenging the All India Bar Examination Rules 2010 which have been framed by the Bar Council of India which mandates that an advocate has to qualify for the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) to practice law after enrollment.

Bombay High Court: Mere Presence at the Crime Scene Not Enough for Punishment

The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot be considered a crime if a person is merely present at the crime scene which falls under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels and Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women Act 2016. It also quashed two First Information Reports (FIR) against two individuals who were arrested in a raid at a dance bar by the Santacruz Police, in 2017.

CAIT Files a Plea Against WhatsApp’s New Privacy Policy in the Supreme Court

Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) has filed a petition against WhatsApp’s new privacy rules in the Supreme Court. The petition says that WhatsApp which is known to render public services by providing a platform to communicate has recently imposed a privacy policy that is unconstitutional, which not only goes against the fundamental rights of citizens but also jeopardizes the national security of our country.

RTI Activist Files a Plea in Bombay High Court Against Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin

On Saturday, a plea has been filed before the Bombay High Court by an activist stating that Bharat Biotech Covaxin had not been granted full approval but a restricted use in clinical trials according to the Drugs Comptroller General of India. The Company's phase 3 trials are ongoing and the DGCI has not made any data available in the public domain for peer- review by independent scientists.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -