The Madras High Court has issued a strong warning against indiscipline and misconduct by police personnel and other government officials appearing before courts, directing the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to introduce clear standards governing their conduct inside courtrooms.

The directions came after the court examined the case of a police officer who was accused of appearing before a judicial magistrate in an allegedly intoxicated condition while giving evidence as a prosecution witness. The High Court said such behaviour not only undermines the dignity of judicial proceedings but also damages the public image of the police force.

A division bench comprising Justices S M Subramaniam and N Senthilkumar, in its judgment delivered on July 14, emphasised that police officers attending court proceedings must maintain the highest standards of discipline, integrity and professional conduct. The bench directed the DGP to issue a circular instructing police personnel appearing before courts to report in proper uniform and conduct themselves with responsibility and decorum.

The court further ordered that any police officer, medical professional or other government official who appears before a court in a disorderly or inappropriate manner should be reported by the concerned judicial officer to the competent authority. Such reports, the court said, should be considered for appropriate disciplinary proceedings.

Case Involved Police Officer Appearing as Official Witness

The judgment followed an appeal filed by police constable V Arumugam, who challenged disciplinary action taken against him over his conduct while appearing as an official witness before a judicial magistrate.

According to the court’s findings, Arumugam was serving as a special sub-inspector of police when he appeared before the magistrate as a prosecution witness in a criminal case that he had investigated. During his deposition in 2014, the magistrate allegedly noticed behaviour suggesting that the officer was under the influence of alcohol.

The court records referred to several observations made at the time, including the alleged smell of alcohol, incoherent speech and shouting. The magistrate subsequently directed that the police officer undergo a medical examination.

A medical officer who examined him reportedly found that his breath smelled of alcohol and issued a certificate recording drunkenness.

The incident resulted in departmental disciplinary proceedings against Arumugam. He was initially subjected to compulsory retirement as a punishment. The penalty was subsequently modified, allowing him to continue in service, although three annual increments were ordered to be withheld.

Arumugam later challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed on him. In 2020, a single judge of the High Court set aside the disciplinary action. The state government then challenged that decision before a division bench. 

High Court Upholds Disciplinary Proceedings

After examining the matter, the division bench allowed the state’s appeal and overturned the single judge’s decision. The judges upheld the disciplinary action taken against the police officer, observing that his conduct constituted serious misconduct.

The bench noted that the behaviour of a police officer inside a courtroom has consequences beyond the individual concerned. Police personnel frequently appear before courts as investigating officers, prosecution witnesses or official witnesses, making their conduct an important part of the administration of justice.

The court observed that appearing before a judicial forum in an intoxicated or disorderly state can adversely affect the dignity of court proceedings and weaken public confidence in the police institution.

The judges also pointed out that departmental disciplinary proceedings are assessed on the basis of the “preponderance of probabilities”, a standard distinct from the higher threshold of proof required in criminal trials. Therefore, the court held that the disciplinary authorities were justified in taking action based on the material available in the departmental proceedings.

Courtroom Conduct of Officials Comes Under Judicial Scrutiny

The High Court made it clear that official witnesses are expected to maintain discipline and decorum whenever they appear before a court.

Police officers, in particular, have a professional responsibility to present themselves appropriately, provide truthful evidence and respect the authority of the judicial process. The court stressed that misconduct within a courtroom cannot be treated casually or ignored because of the position held by the individual involved.

The bench also placed responsibility on judicial officers to ensure that such behaviour is brought to the attention of the relevant authorities. If an official witness displays indiscipline, misconduct or unusual behaviour while appearing before a court, the concerned judicial officer should formally report the matter so that the competent department can consider disciplinary action.

The court’s observation is significant because police officers and other government officials often play a crucial role in court proceedings. Their testimony can influence the progress of criminal cases, while their conduct can affect perceptions about the credibility and professionalism of the institutions they represent.

DGP Asked to Issue Circular Within Four Weeks

As part of its broader directions, the Madras High Court instructed the Tamil Nadu DGP to issue a circular within four weeks laying down the expected standards of conduct for police personnel attending court proceedings.

The circular is expected to reinforce the requirement that police officers appearing before courts should be properly dressed in uniform and maintain discipline, integrity and devotion to duty.

The court also directed its Registry to circulate the DGP’s instructions to courts across Tamil Nadu. The move is aimed at ensuring that the standards laid down by the judgment are implemented consistently across the state’s judicial system.

The court’s directions underline the importance of maintaining professionalism not only within police departments but also in judicial settings, where the conduct of public officials is closely connected to the credibility of the justice system.

Emphasis on Dignity of Judicial Proceedings

The judgment sends a wider message that courtroom proceedings require strict adherence to discipline and professional standards from everyone involved, particularly government officials appearing in an official capacity.

The High Court made it clear that a police officer appearing as a witness carries the responsibility of representing the police institution before the court. Any conduct that compromises the dignity of the proceedings can therefore have consequences for both the individual officer and the reputation of the force.

By directing the DGP to establish uniform instructions and asking judicial officers to report instances of misconduct, the court has sought to create a stronger mechanism of accountability.

The decision also reinforces the principle that public servants appearing before courts are expected to uphold the integrity of their office. Proper attire, disciplined behaviour, truthful testimony and respect for judicial authority, the court indicated, are essential requirements for maintaining public confidence in the justice delivery system.

The directions issued in the case are expected to serve as a reminder to police personnel and other government officials that their responsibilities do not end with their departmental duties. When they enter a courtroom as official witnesses, they are also required to uphold the dignity and sanctity of the judicial process.