Supreme Court Orders Transfer of Indore SHO Amid Allegations of Misconduct Interim directives highlight need for accountability in policing; Commissioner of Police held responsible for compliance.
In a significant move, the Supreme Court of India has issued interim directions against a Station House Officer (SHO) from Indore, Madhya Pradesh, citing allegations of improper conduct in investigations. The court's order comes amidst accusations of using "stock witnesses," a practice that undermines the integrity and fairness of police investigations.
The bench, comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, directed the competent authority to transfer the SHO, identified as Respondent No.4, to a non-investigative role. This decision is rooted in the court's view that the SHO's conduct poses a threat to the principles of fairness and impartiality in law enforcement.
The Supreme Court's intervention follows a series of troubling revelations, including a reference to a High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment. In the cited case, the same SHO was involved in allegations of illegal detention and handcuffing without judicial authorization, a violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to life.
The court also emphasized the role of the Commissioner of Police, Indore, holding them personally responsible for ensuring compliance with the court's directives. Any interference by the concerned SHO in ongoing police matters is to be reported directly to the Supreme Court.
The judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring accountability within the police force. It also highlights the judiciary's proactive role in addressing misconduct and safeguarding citizens' rights against unlawful police actions.
The court has scheduled further proceedings for February 3, 2026, to assess compliance with its orders and to evaluate the roles of other senior police officials involved.
Bottom Line:
Interim directions passed against Station House Officer for improper conduct in investigations, including repeated use of 'stock witnesses' and violation of fairness and impartiality, highlighting the need for accountability and adherence to constitutional principles.
Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Anwar Hussain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838815
