The Bombay High Court at Goa has issued notices to the Goa government, the Director General of Police, the Superintendent of Police, the investigating officer as well as the four police constables accused of assaulting Adv Gajanan Sawant, in what has now snowballed into a major issue.
The High Court instituted a suo motu petition after being urged to do so by members of the High Court Bar Association as well as several other bar associations.
“By the next date, the State should file a preliminary affidavit apprising the Court of steps taken in the matter. Along with the affidavit, the State should also produce a copy of the hurt certificate, if any, and other relevant medical case papers concerning Advocate Gajanan Sawant,” the High Court bench of Justices M S Sonak and Bharat Deshpande ruled.
The High Court Bar Association had earlier passed a resolution requesting the Home Minister, who is presently the Chief Minister, the Law Minister and the Director General of Police of the State, that a Magisterial Inquiry be conducted by the District Collector, and the concerned police officials/staff, if prima facie found to be guilty of misuse of authority, that they be put to suspension and also relegated to a Department Inquiry, and the First Information Report, be thoroughly investigated, and the erring police officials be brought to trial/justice expeditiously and within a short period of time.
The High Court Bar Association also said that the actions of the police staff, irrespective of its merits, is a violation of human rights and a serious threat to functioning of the legal fraternity.
“It is therefore resolved to forward copies of this resolution for information and necessary action to the Chief Justice, High Court of Bombay and the Senior Administrative Judge at Goa, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, North Goa, the Chief Minister of Goa, the Law Minister of Goa, the Chief Secretary and the Directorate General of Police, Goa, for emergent and expeditious action, and an answer from the Goa Police, to the queries raised.
The High Court has also said it is “of the opinion that this matter should not be treated as an adversarial litigation”.
