Gurugram: The Supreme Court Friday quashed a summons and subsequent proceedings issued against retired Haryana IPS officer Bharti Arora over an inquiry conducted on her orders in 2005, which found that a man arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act was innocent. The top court ruled that Arora was wrongfully implicated under Section 58 of the act.
The Supreme Court came down heavily on the special court that passed the order against Arora, saying the judge had acted in a predetermined manner, going against the principles of natural justice, fair trial, and procedural propriety.
An IPS officer of the 1998 batch and recipient of the President’s Police Medal, Arora had taken voluntary retirement in 2021 when she was inspector-general of police at Ambala.
Contacted by The Print for her reaction, Arora said, “Truth has triumphed. Satyameva jayate!”
She said that as a police officer, it was her duty to be the voice of the voiceless and ensure that no innocent person was framed. She added that she had suffered greatly for a number of years for exercising her duty honestly, but the truth had finally triumphed.
What was the case?
The case stemmed from a January 2005 narcotics bust in Kurukshetra, Haryana, where police allegedly seized 8.7 kilograms of opium from a suspect, Ran Singh.
Arora was the SP at Kurukshetra at the time.
Ran Singh moved an application before the SP through a relative, saying that he was innocent and others had planted the opium to frame him in a false case.
Arora then ordered DSP Ram Phal to conduct a probe. The inquiry found that Ran Singh was innocent and the opium was planted by three drug pedlars with previous cases against them—Surjeet Singh, Angrez Singh and Mehar Deen.
The police applied for the discharge of Ran Singh before a special court.
However, these findings were dismissed by the special judge, who convicted Ran Singh in 2007 and issued show-cause notices to Arora and other officers under Section 58 of the NDPS Act for allegedly fabricating evidence and misleading the investigation.
Section 58 of the NDPS Act deals with the punishment for certain types of misconduct by authorised personnel.
The section addresses situations where officials empowered under the act misuse their powers in a vexatious or malicious manner. It aims to ensure accountability and prevent the misuse of authority in narcotics-related operations.
Arora was asked to be present before the court on 15 March, 2007. After her appearance, the case was adjourned to 12 April, 2007 for her reply, which she filed.
The case continued and Arora was asked to be present on 22 May, 2008. However, she filed an application for exemption from personal presence on the ground that she was directed by the inspector-general of Police, Railways & Technical Services, Haryana, to coordinate with the investigating teams at Jaipur in connection with the Samjhauta Express bombing that had taken place the previous year.
As noted in the Supreme Court judgment, the special judge “observed that the letter issued by the IG directing her to report to Jaipur was obtained to avoid her personal presence in the court”. The judge placed the matter on 24 May, directing her to be present and to produce proof of her visit to Jaipur.
On 24 May, another exemption application was filed by the appellant on the ground that she was still investigating the Samjhauta bombing at Jaipur. The special judge dismissed the exemption application and issued a bailable warrant against the appellant.
On 26 May, the special judge was transferred to Panipat. Despite this, on 30 May, the same judge dictated an order in a sealed cover and adjourned the matter to 4 June, 2008.
The matter escalated when the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld the lower court’s findings in 2010, prompting Arora to appeal to the Supreme Court. The apex court stayed the high court’s order and commenced its review of the case.
Also read: Haryana’s IAS officers are juggling multiple depts. What’s behind state’s acute shortage of officers
Findings ‘beset with legal infirmities’, says SC
The three-judge Supreme Court bench, led by Justice B.R. Gavai, delivered a scathing indictment of the handling of the case by the special judge and the high court. The bench identified numerous procedural violations and inconsistencies.
These included the “violation of the principles of natural justice”. The court observed that the special judge recorded adverse findings against Arora during the trial without issuing her notice or providing an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court emphasised that justice “should not only be done but must also be seen to be done”.
The top court also highlighted the issue of improper jurisdiction, pointing out that offences under Section 58 of the NDPS Act, carrying a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment, must be tried summarily by a magistrate. The special judge’s decision to initiate proceedings exceeded jurisdiction.
The court further noted that the special judge dictated an order against Arora in May 2008—despite having received transfer orders to immediately relinquish the post—and placed it in a sealed cover. This, according to the bench, shows the “predetermined mind of the learned special judge”.
The apex court also observed that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to demonstrate any malice or mala fide intent on Arora’s part. The actions taken during her tenure as SP were deemed consistent with her official duties and protected under the good-faith provisions of Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
It noted that essential procedural requirements, such as examining witnesses and allowing cross-examinations, were not followed during the proceedings against Arora.
Justice Gavai, delivering the judgment, said, “The findings against the appellant [Bharti Arora] are beset with legal infirmities. The principles of natural justice have been grossly violated, and the proceedings reflect a complete disregard for procedural propriety.”
The court further emphasised that procedural safeguards are not mere technicalities but fundamental to ensuring a fair trial. It also reiterated that public servants acting in good faith should be presumed innocent unless compelling evidence suggests otherwise.
Let me have the honour of naming and shaming the “learned special judge” mentioned in this article.
She is Ms. Sarita Gupta (Presiding Officer, Special Court).
Fellow commentators may verify the same from other authentic sources.
Who is this “learned” special judge? Please name him and shame him.
Perhaps a dose of good old fashioned public thrashing would set this “special judge” straight.
Errant Judges should be named and shamed in all articles.
Great judgement by the SC. As this judgement clearly proves that the judges of the special court and HC made mistakes, shouldn’t there be any action on them?
Who is this “learned” special judge? Please name him and shame him. Maybe all he needs is some good old fashioned public thrashing.