The Supreme Court today stayed the contempt proceedings against four Gujarat police officers who were sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment by the Gujarat High Court in October 2023 for their involvement in public flogging of Muslim men in Gujarat’s Kheda.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta admitted the statutory appeal preferred by police officers A V Parmar, D B Kumavat, Laxmansinh Kanaksinh Dabhi and Rajubhai Dabhi under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against a October 19 order of the Gujarat High Court.
However, the Supreme Court bench came down heavily on the police officers. Justice Mehta slammed the police officer for tying the people to polls and beating them in public view. Justice Gavai also questioned if the police officers have an authority under the law to tie people to polls and beat them.
Appearing for the official, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave informed the court that his clients were already facing criminal prosecution, departmental proceedings, as well as an inquiry by the National Human Rights Commission. He questioned the high court’s jurisdiction to proceed against them in a contempt case, arguing that a wilful disobedience of the court’s order in DK Basu could not be made out.
Siddharth Dave insisted that the question was not about culpability of the accused, but the jurisdiction of the high court. Countering, Justice Gavai questioned if ignorance of law is a valid defence. He said that it is the duty of every police officer to know what is the law laid down in DK Basu.
Reportedly, the Gujarat High Court had charged the police officers with contempt of court, after five of the Muslim men flogged in public view approached the court alleging a violation of the DK Basu guidelines on custodial torture. The incident occurred at Undhela village in Kheda district soon after their arrest on charges of pelting stones on a garba event. Though these police officials were handed out a contempt sentence of 14 days, the high court agreed to stay its execution for three months to allow them to challenge its verdict.
Assailing the Gujarat High Court’s findings that the Muslim men were kept in illegal detention for over 24 hours, Senior Advocate Dave argued that this finding is subject to a trial. He added that under contempt jurisdiction, they cannot be prosecuted for an offence, if it is later discovered that they were not under illegal custody.
When questioned about the status of the private complaint, Senior Advocate IH Syed pointed out that although the private complaint was pending, according to the DK Basu verdict, contempt charges were independent and irrespective of departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution. He argued that they are simply saying it’s not wilful.
Subsequently, the top court bench admitted the appeal and directed the hearing to be expedited. Responding to Siddharth Dave’s request for an extension of the high court’s stay on its own order in the contempt case, Justice Gavai initially denied but eventually acceded to the request, and stayed the contempt proceedings before the high court.