Begin typing your search...

    'Corruption pervades at all levels including judicial service': MHC

    A person who has acquired wealth through unfair means is often accorded the same, if not higher, status in Indian society as that given to persons of excellence, observed Justice.

    Corruption pervades at all levels including judicial service: MHC
    X

    Madras High Court

    CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government and Director General of Police to confiscate the illegally accumulated wealth of police officials, gained through corrupt practices. The court also observed that corruption in India pervades all levels and services including IAS, IPS, and Judicial services.

    Justice SM Subramaniam observed that a contributory factor to the growth of corruption in India is that the cases relating to corruption are often handled in a casual and clumsy manner.

    In present-day India, corruption has found acceptance in the social psyche and behaviour.

    A person who has acquired wealth through unfair means is often accorded the same, if not higher, status in Indian society as that given to persons of excellence, observed Justice.

    Such people are repeatedly elected or appointed to positions of power, and they go on to distribute the spoils of office to their near and dear ones, he added.

    In the ultimate analysis, the corrupt politician or the corrupt administrator is a creation of the public and is a concrete manifestation of the psychologically corrupt men in the street with whose approval corruption flourishes with impunity. There is little doubt that corruption in present-day India pervades all levels and all services, not even sparing the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, and Judicial Service, observed Justice.

    Further, the Justice ordered to verify the genuinity of the declarations given by police officials including all the assets purchased in the name of the family members, relatives, and persons known to them. Justice also directed to ensure that Special Cells are constituted in the offices of the Director General of Police and Director General of Vigilance and Anti-corruption by providing separate telephone numbers, mobile numbers/ Whatsapp numbers enabling the citizens to register their complaints or provide information about corrupt activities in Government Departments and instrumentalities of the State.

    Petitioner M Rajendran moved the Madras High Court (MHC) seeking to quash the FIR filed in 2009 against him and his family members regarding the purchase of land in Sriperumbudur, Kanchipuram.

    According to the petitioner he bought a piece of land in Sriperumbudur village in the name of his wife and son. However, the sub-inspector Kancheepuram M Sukumaran and head constable Vijaykumar demanded a bribe from him, saying that there is illegality in the purchase of the land and threatened his family in the police station.

    Further, he said that the Sukumaran insisted him to negotiate with some other advocates to settle the issue. Later, his family member gave Rs.1.5 lakhs to Vijayaraghavan, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Krishnagiri, Sukumaran Sub Inspector, Kancheepuram, and head constable Vijayakumar, alleged the petitioner.

    Allegedly, the DSP demanded Rs.10,00,000 from the petitioner for not to register FIR against him. When the petitioner expressed his inability to pay such money, the police booked him in a criminal case illegally and published it in newspapers, said the petitioner.

    The respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations raised by the petitioner. Being a Village Administrative Officer (VAO) the petitioner transferred the patta of a land belonging to a Mutt in Kancheepuram to his name illegally. Using his power the petitioner purchased more than 37 properties, which are worth more than Rs.100 Crores, the affidavit stated.

    However, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department conducted an investigation into the allegations of possession of assets disproportionate to his own source of income against the petitioner. The investigation did not disclose any prima facie material, and further action against the petitioner was dropped.

    DTNEXT Bureau
    Next Story