(Prayer: Writ petition(Crl.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider and examine the Petitioner’s representation dated 05.05.2025 within a reasonable time period and to respond to the same or take such action against the Third Respondent as deemed appropriate in accordance with law.)

1. This writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and examine the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 05.05.2025 and take appropriate action against the third respondent.

2. The petitioner is a journalist and committed to constitutional values and the preservation of democratic institutions. The petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the first and second respondents alleging that the representation exposes an unprecedented constitutional crisis where the third respondent who is the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, holding the highest order of authority among uniformed forces, has engaged in systematic misconduct that threatens the very foundations of democratic governance. That, it concerns not merely administrative misconduct but an existential threat to the fundamental principle that in a democracy, the police must remain subordinate to civilian authority and independent from media manipulation. Prior to 05.05.2025, an invitation was issued by the Chennai Press Club, a politically elected press association featuring the third respondent in his official police uniform as Chief Guest for their restaurant inauguration function scheduled for 10.05.2025 at 12.00 noon. It is clear violation of multiple provisions of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966 and All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. However, on the said complaint, there is no action taken so far. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

3. On instruction, the learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submitted that on receipt of the said complaint, the same was forwarded to the second respondent for conducting enquiry.

4. The learned Counsel for Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side), on behalf of the third respondent, submitted that the petitioner has no locus to seek mandamus to enforce a statutory right by initiating action against an officer by the Home Secretary. As such, this writ petition is not maintainable and lacks of jurisdiction.

5. The petitioner is not conferred with any statutory right touching upon the service of the officer concerned. There is absolutely no violation committed under the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966. The object of the law is to ensure independence of the Police Force from the political activities.

6. Even as per the allegations levelled against the third respondent, the officer concerned had participated in the inauguration of a canteen opened by Chennai Press Club. The Chennai Press Club by itself is not a political body and even according to the petitioner, the police officer concerned had not participated or actively involved himself in a political discussion or activity.

7. The Chennai Press Club is an association of members from several print and visual media. Therefore, the contention that it is a politically affiliated association does not appear to be made in the current context. It is relevant to rely upon the Section 3 of Police Officers (Restriction of Rights) Act, 1966, which is extracted hereunder:

                   3. Restrictions respecting right to form association, freedom of speech, etc –

                   (1) No member of a police force shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority,

                   (a)be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or

                   (b)be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any other society, institution, association or organisation that is not recognised as part of the force of which he is a member or is not of a purely social, recreational or religious nature; or

                   (c)communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document except where such communication or publication is in the bona fide discharge of his duties or is of a purely literary, artistic or scientific character or is of a prescribed nature.

                   Explanation. If any question arises as to whether any society, institution, association or organisation is of a purely social recreational or religious nature under clause (b) of this sub-section, the decision of the Central Government thereon shall be final.

                   (2)No member of a police force shall participate in, or address, any meeting or take part in any demonstration organised by any body of persons for any political purposes or for such other purposes as may be prescribed.

8. Thus it is clear that no member of a police force shall, without the express sanction of the Central Government or of the prescribed authority, be a member of, or be associated in any way with, any trade union, labour union, political association or with any class of trade unions, labour unions or political associations; or communicate with the press or publish or cause to be published any book, letter or other document. Even according to the petitioner, the third respondent i.e. the then Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai was the Chief Guest for the inauguration of restaurant owned by Chennai Press Club. Therefore, the above act is not applicable to the allegations levelled against the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai Corporation.

9. The law is well settled that as a third party not connected with any service dispute cannot maintain a writ petition by invoking Article 226 of Constitution of India and the same and the service side seeking writ of mandamus to take action against any employee or official. In the case of Ranjit Prasad Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 313, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:

                   8. It is, no doubt, true that the scope of "locus standi" has been widened by this Court through its various decisions and, that too, in the field of Public Interest Litigation where it has been said that Public Interest Litigation can be initiated not only by filing petitions in the High Court or in this Court in a regular manner but also by means of letters and telegrams addressed to the Court. (See : People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, State of Himachal Pradesh v. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Shimla and Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. Muddappa.

                   9. But a mere busy-body who has no interest cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court. In respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court or in this Court. Disciplinary action against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for "misconduct" on the part of the employee. This action is taken after a "domestic" enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. It is essentially a matter between the employer and the employee, and a stranger, much less a practising advocate, cannot be said to have any interest in those proceedings. Public interest of general importance is not involved in disciplinary proceedings. In fact, if such petitions are entertained at the instance of persons who are not connected with those proceedings, it would amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

10. Thus it is clear that in respect of departmental proceedings which are initiated or sought to be initiated by the Government against its employees, a person who is not even remotely connected with those proceedings cannot challenge any aspect of the departmental proceedings or action by filing a writ petition. The disciplinary proceedings against an employee is taken by the Government for various reasons principally for ‘misconduct’ on the part of the employee and this action is taken after a ‘domestic’ enquiry in which the employee is provided an opportunity of hearing as required by the constitutional mandate. The misconduct committed, if any, by an employee, can only be looked into by the Government by initiating departmental proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to file this writ petition seeking direction to take departmental action against the then Commissioner of Corporation of Chennai. However, the complaint lodged by the petitioner has now been forwarded to the second respondent for enquiry.

11. Therefore, it is left open to the second respondent to conduct enquiry against the then Commissioner of Police, Chennai Corporation and to proceed in accordance with law.

12. With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.