ThiruvananThapuram: Controversy related to the audio clip that leaked from a telephone conversation between a judge Judicial and a police officer, with a cunning recording and published by police officers, encouraging a high court registrator to direct the head of the State Police to instruct members of the forces against using such tactics tarnish justice before the public.
Interestingly, instead of warning the police against recording and leaking, communiques (accessed by TOI) by state police chief, Anil Kant issued last Saturday aimed at ADGP (law and order), ADGP (Crime Branch), zonal IGS and range.
, just saying that all police officers must be “more vigilant when using the social media platform and avoiding the incident from such incidents in the future, which will tarnish the reputation of the judiciary in front of the public”.
Communicating leaving a question that has not been answered whether it was allowed for police officials to do “surgery sting” such as officials or other people besides justice officials.
The communique issued by the National Police Chief explained the background of this problem in detail, which was an incident that occurred in May this year.
Audio clips are said that from the Magistrate-1 first class Judicial-1, Neyattinkara, Tiara Rose Mary, circulated through social media.
In the audio clip, allegedly recorded and continued by a police station Parassala, the judge was heard to rebuke police officers because they repeatedly called him on his official telephone without manners.
Furthermore, the judge has also issued orders to the police and excise supervisors in his jurisdiction forbid them to call it directly.
After the audio clip became a viral, the High Court has moved the judge from the post.
On June 16, a high court registrator, who was responsible for the district of Justice, had written to the National Police Chief which stated that “has been noted that the actions of police personnel in recording conversations and issuing sound clips on social media have resulted in tarnishing the image of the justice as a whole “.
The next clerk asked the police chief to take the necessary actions and issue directions to avoid the incident from the incident in the future.
The registrar direction has signaled a background incident that is looking for action in such things in the future.
It was a compliance step that the state police chief had now issued a communique.
Strangely, in the communique, the State Police Chief said the name of the Judicial Judge was concerned and stated that “the judge was heard using unpleasant language against him in cellular telephone conversations”.
Furthermore, said that next, such actions from the police officer would be “considered seriously and would withdraw disciplinary actions”.