Shillong, July 31: High Court of Meghalaya has summoned East Khasi Hills SP Vivek Syiem for lawlessness related to assault and parading of the advocate allegedly involved in molesting an intern.
The court asked the police to seize the CCTV footage
As far as the alleged molestation is concerned, the Shillong Bar Association has suspended the advocate.
During the hearing on the matter on Friday (July 31), Chief Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Judge W. Diengdoh observed that the police failed to act, and permitted the non-state actors to
take law into their own hands. If the police, as stated by Advocate K Paul
were present when the incident took place, they should have stepped in and taken immediate action and should not have permitted the incident to take place and lawlessness to continue.
“Such lawlessness defeats the performance of the state’s duty and
emboldens non-state actors to take law into their own hands, which cannot be permitted”, the court said.
The police are under statutory obligation to uphold the rule of law and as such, should have acted with alacrity when the incident was noticed by them or even
thereafter, the court observed.
The court pointed out that pursuant to the representation on July 29 submitted by the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association and the Shillong Bar Association, the petition has been registered.
The petitioners have highlighted in the
representation the manner in which the advocate was apprehended by non-state actors from his professional chamber
and thereafter, subjected to physical assault and paraded from
his chamber at Keating Road, to Sadar Police Station.
According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the manner in which non-state actors took the matter into their own
hands, while the state police abdicated its role by not apprehending or taking action against the non-state actors for not stopping the assault.
Advocate K Paul appearing for the
petitioners relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India & ors reported in (2018) 9
SCC 501, in support of his submission that, such actions by
non-state actors cannot be countenanced. He submitted that in
Tehseen S. Poonawalla (supra), the Apex Court had given several
guidelines i.e., preventive, remedial and punitive measures that
are expected to be taken/followed by the state governments. He submits that instead of taking action against non-state actors,the police remained mute spectators to the incident and as such,
have violated the directions/guidelines given by the Apex Court. He further submits that it was the duty of the
police to register an FIR against the non-state actors and the association, however, till date they have failed in their
duty to do so.
He submits that till date, no FIR has been
registered against the non-state actors, who brutally assaulted and paraded the Advocate; nor has the footage of the
incident been collected. He further submits that even after the
assault on the Advocate, the non-state actors gave interviews in Sadar Police Station, which could not have been permitted.
“We find substance in the submission advanced by him, that the
police failed to act, and as such permitted the non-State actors to take law into their own hands. If the police, as stated by Mr.Paul were present when the said incident took place, they should have
stepped in and taken immediate action and should not have permitted the incident to take place and lawlessness to continue. Such lawlessness defeats the performance of the state’s duty and
emboldens non-etate actors to take law into their own hands,which cannot be permitted. The police are under statutory
obligation to uphold the rule of law and as such, should have acted with alacrity when the incident was noticed by them or even thereafter”, the court said
Advocate General submitted that
appropriate steps will be taken at the earliest in connection with the incident. “Since, the Advocate General seeks time
to take appropriate steps in this regard, having regard to thej udgment in Tehseen S. Poonawalla,stand over to 3rd August”, the order said.
Advocate General will have to file an affidavit with respect to the steps taken vis-à-vis incident of assault on the
Advocate.
6. At this stage, Yangi B., a senior member of the Bar, submitted that the Bar Council of Meghalaya as well as the Shillong
Bar Association, having regard to the nature of allegations against
the Advocate, ought to take immediate action, on the representation made by the women lawyers. Advocate Paul stated that appropriate steps will be taken at the earliest and that the advocate was suspended.
