T P Senkumar case order reserved

New Delhi: Even as the Kerala government  refuted the allegation that former DGP T.P. Senkumar was transferred with mala fide intentions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved orders on the writ petition questioning his transfer. At the outset, senior counsel Harish Salve made it clear to the bench comprising justices Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s decision based on his assessment that Mr Senkumar’s performance as DGP was not up to the standards cannot be subjected to judicial review unless it was shown that the transfer was made with mala fide intentions.

He said “the CM’s assessment is based on public opinion against the police force. You (court) are testing the decision of the Chief Minister which was a prima facie satisfaction.” If the CM is acting within his administrative framework and if there is no mala fide intention, then the court will not interfere, he said.   Mr Salve blamed Mr Senkumar for not acting on intelligence reports and then trying to cover up the probe. “Sometimes the captain of a ship will have to sink with the ship,” he said justifying the transfer based on his overall conduct after the Puttingal temple fire tragedy and after the murder of law student  Jisha.  

Denying the charge that Mr Senkumar was a victim of the LDF government which shunted him within two days of coming to power, Mr Salve said the file on Mr Senkumar had started moving before the LDF government came to power. "It was only continued action," he said and added that there was no need to consult the state security commission as this was not a case of  "removal" as alleged, but transfer. When Justice Lokur asked “where is the material for the CM arriving at the decision,”  Mr. Salve said there was the report of the home secretary before him, which had pointed out the lapses on the part of Mr. Senkumar. He said when there was a tragedy of large  proportion killing 110 people, the DGP’s action must inspire confidence among the people and the police force.

Mr Salve said it was not a punitive action by the government but based on the subjective satisfaction of the Chief Minister that there was a serious dissatisfaction in the minds of the people about the police force and that the DGP was responsible for it. It was the duty of the Chief Minister to restore the confidence and his subjective evaluation of the DGP’s performance cannot be questioned. He said when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the accident site, it was intended to make the administration to take whatever steps necessary to instil confidence. Senior counsel Dushyant Dave and Prashant Bhushan, appearing for Mr Senkumar, however, maintained that the DGP was removed for extraneous reasons.

The counsel submitted that his removal from the top police post was guided by sheer political motives and in violation of apex court judgment in Prakash Singh’s case which fixed a minimum tenure of two years for DGPs. Any removal of them should be done by the state government in consultation with the state security commission under the Kerala Police Act of 2011.Mr. Dave said there should be "some semblance of law.”    The counsel alleged that he was displaced immediately after declaration of the result in the general election to the Assembly held in 2016 as a measure of political vendetta. He said Mr. Senkumar’s transfer had affected the police administration in the state which can be seen from the escalation of political murders in Kerala from June 1, 2016.  He prayed for quashing the transfer order.