Madras HC flags ‘purity’ gap in police service, seeks DGP report

MADURAI: Observing that the stringent standards followed in police recruitment were not maintained for serving police personnel, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu DGP to file a report on criminal cases pending against police officials and the departmental action taken against them.

“Considering Rule 14(b) of the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules and the ground reality, the court seeks a report from the Director General of Police on the number of criminal cases pending against police officials and how long they had been pending, as well as details of the departmental proceedings, if any, initiated against police officials involved in criminal cases,” said Justice B Pugalendi.

The court issued the direction while hearing a petition challenging the police department’s decision to deny the petitioner appointment, despite his selection for the post of Grade-II Police Constable in the recruitment year 2022-23, on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The trial court had acquitted the petitioner of the charges in June 2026.

“Such stringent rules have been incorporated in the Tamil Nadu Special Police Subordinate Service Rules to ensure purity in the police service and to prevent persons with criminal character and antecedents from entering into the police service. However, the purity as per this Rule is not maintained in the department, for the serving officers and police constables,” observed Justice Pugalendhi.

The judge further observed that the court had witnessed several cases in which police officers involved in criminal cases were allowed to continue in service for years without any disciplinary action being taken against them.

“Many are rewarded with subsistence allowance and full salary,” the judge observed.

The investigations and trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been delayed for years, and, given the pendency of the criminal case, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated for several years, the court observed.

Despite the Government Order dated May 16, 1973, clearly stating that simultaneous departmental proceedings should be initiated against officials facing criminal cases, even now, persons involved in criminal cases are serving without departmental proceedings being initiated against them, the court observed.

After issuing the direction, the court posted the case for orders on September 28, 2026.