SC asks Telangana DGP to ensure communication gaps between prosecution, govt counsel are filled

The Supreme Court on Friday asked the Telangana police chief to take steps to plug communication gaps between the prosecution and the government counsel as it lamented the lack of proper assistance in the adjudication of criminal cases.

A bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S V N Bhatti told the state’s director general of police (DGP) Dr. Jitender, who appeared before the court virtually, that in criminal matters, the court was repeatedly not getting proper assistance.

Justice Bhatti said, “I must tell you that we are not getting proper assistance from your state in criminal matters, this is the default situation.” Similarly, Justice Roy pointed out that this phenomenon is being seen repeatedly in cases related to Telangana.

The top police officer of the state accepted that there were certain lapses on the part of police officials as no date was mentioned in the charge sheets. He submitted that necessary action will be taken against the officials for the lapses.

The state government counsel also apologised for the communication gap and said that it wouldn’t be repeated again.

The bench asked the DGP to file an affidavit indicating the lapses noticed by the court on October 1.

The top court was hearing a plea by Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) leader Vatti Janaiah Yadav, who was earlier part of the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS).

He had moved the apex court last year alleging criminal persecution by the then BRS-led state government after he quit the BRS and joined the BSP.

The top court last year granted interim protection from arrest to Yadav in multiple FIRs lodged against him.

On October 1, expressing displeasure over the “disconnect” between the prosecution and the government counsel in a criminal matter, the top court asked the DGP to appear before it.

The court got miffed over the counsel for Telangana not knowing the relevant dates when the charge sheets were filed in criminal matters related to Yadav despite a specific query.

The counsel had simply submitted that the charge sheets had been filed.

“We are indeed surprised by the response of the government counsel as the respective dates of filing of the charge sheets should either be readily accessible or the instructing officer should have indicated the relevant dates of the charge sheets together when the information was given that charge sheets were filed.

“The disconnect between the prosecution and the government counsel is clearly discernible,” the bench had recorded in its order.

It had directed the DGP to appear before it either physically or virtually.