The Karnataka High Court shows the disagreement regarding the public interest litigation (PIL) which is filed by an advocate who seeking direction to concerned police station officer to register the particular First Information Reports (FIR) against the police officer who dared to tortured violators during lockdown due to Covid- 19 pandemic.
The divisional bench comprising of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice M Nagapasanna held that the petition filed by the Advocate S Balakrishnan was of no use and containing the unwanted or unsubstantiated allegations which is not proper, so the petition should be dismissed. The court further imposed the fine or cost of Rs. 1000 on him which he bound to pay or deposited with “Karnataka Legal Services Authority” within a time limit of 30 days.
The bench observation:
The court observation on the petition – “Except for making bald statement in the writ petition nothing has been brought on record in respect of so-called allegation police atrocities.”
The court also added that the advocate present his petition without any authentic proof i.e. he does not present any single instance or any documentary proof or record which shows that the people have been assaulted or threatened by the public servants i.e. police officer while doing public service or following lockdown protocols or orders. The petitioner being an advocate is fully aware about the well defined procedure of the registration of First hand Information (FIR) and in this case no FIR was registered.
The court also observed that- “The police force in the Karnataka as well as the over the country are the people who is spite of Covid – 19 pandemic are working day and night, they are providing assistance to common citizens and by no stretch of imagination it can be said they are committing atrocities during the Covid – 19 pandemic as contended in the writ petition.”
While rejecting the petition the court held that –“The entire world is facing a very grave situation on account of Covid – 19 pandemic and it is resulting in the loss of lakhs and lakhs of human lives all over the globe. Keeping people confined to their home in certainly reducing the risk of infection. The frontline workers who are police officer also are exposed to infection more than the common people. Despite hundreds of hundreds of deaths of doctors, police officers, paramedical staff, frontline workers etc. even though there being a threat of life, they are performing their duties religiously. The police officers are on the streets doing their duty diligently in uniform. This court does not rule out the possibility of one or two cases of such alleged atrocities, but there is a remedy available in law for filing a complaint under the Cr.PC.”
It was also mentioned by the court that – During the tenure of April 1 and May 13 of this year the 41 Police Officers lost their lives while serving himself during the havoc Covid -19 pandemic. In first wave the data was quite high than this around 103 police personnel was no more between us due disasterical effect of Covid – 19.
Referring to the judgment in the case title – State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 the bench held that – “A frivolous Public Interest Litigation containing unsubstantiated allegations deserves to be dismissed in order to preserve purity and sanctity of the public interest litigation (PIL).”
The court also motioned the other example in which the petitioner who compared the incident of “lathi charge over Lala Lajpat Rai.” The said – “The freedom struggle cannot be compared to the lockdown imposed due to Covid – 19 pandemic.