Court Quashes Orders Passed Solely by Chairperson, Emphasizing Collective Decision-Making Mandated by Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007
In a significant judgment delivered on August 12, 2026, the Uttarakhand High Court, presided over by Justice Pankaj Purohit, declared that an order passed solely by the Chairperson of the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) without the participation of other members is illegal and unsustainable in law. The Court quashed the impugned orders dated June 30, 2011, and September 9, 2012, which had been challenged by Kamal Kumar Lunthi, a Sub-Inspector posted at Lakhi Bagh Chowki, Dehradun.
The case arose from allegations against the petitioner concerning the investigation and arrest of an accused under FIR No. 196 of 2010, registered at Kotwali Police Station, Dehradun. The petitioner was accused of misconduct by Bharat Bhushan Gupta, who filed a complaint before the SPCA alleging bias and unconstitutional arrest procedures.
The SPCA, through its Chairperson alone, had passed an order holding Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code as non-cognizable and bailable, thereby criticizing the petitioner's actions and directing disciplinary action. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds that the SPCA, as constituted under Sections 64 and 65 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007, comprises a Chairperson and up to four other members, and decisions must be taken collectively.
The Court underscored that although the Act does not explicitly specify a quorum, the very composition of the Authority with multiple members inherently requires collective decision-making. The unilateral passing of the impugned order by the Chairperson was held to be "non est" - not valid in the eyes of law.
Referencing the precedent set in M/s Dasauni v. State of Uttarakhand (2015 SCC Online Utt 2625), the Court affirmed that the Authority's orders must bear the signatures of the Chairperson and other members or be passed collectively. The absence of participation by other members rendered the order void.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders, providing clarity on the functioning of the State Police Complaints Authority and reinforcing the principles of legality and due process in administrative decision-making within police oversight mechanisms.
This judgment is a pivotal reminder that statutory authorities must adhere strictly to their composition and procedural mandates, ensuring collective and lawful decision-making to uphold justice and administrative propriety.
Bottom Line:
Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 - Order passed by Chairperson of State Police Complaints Authority without participation of other members is illegal and not sustainable in law.
Statutory provision(s):
Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 Sections 64, 65; Indian Penal Code Section 506
Kamal Kumar Lunthi v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2968000
