Saturday, November 7, 2026
- Article
- Comments (0)
Winner takes nothing
HARSHAKUMAR KUGWE | Issue Dated: May 13, 2012, New Delhi
Tags : Sadashiva Commission report | Shankar Bidari |
Tags : Sadashiva Commission report | Shankar Bidari |
The bitter legal row over the post of Karnataka police chief is unlikely to benefit either of the two contenders as both are due to retire in less than a month, reports Harshakumar Kugwe
The legal battle raging over the appointment of the Director-General and Inspector-General (DG&IGP) of Karnataka police has entered its last round. But ironically neither Shankar Bidari (1978 batch) nor AR Infant (1977 batch) seems likely to get the post they so desperately covet.
The row erupted after former DG&IGP Nilam Achyut Rao relinquished office on November 30 last year. The odds have swung like a pendulum between Bidari and Infant in the months since, but the latest development in the case – an April 24 Supreme Court stay order on a Karnataka high court ruling that quashed Bidari's appointment and ordered Infant's elevation to the post – has ironically put both men out of contention.
An SC bench of Justices Aftab Alam and CK Prasad asked the high court to examine the matter afresh and dispose it of before May 31. However, the high court is in summer recess and the legal proceedings will resume only on May 21. The SC’s stay order may be construed as a relief to Bidari, but it is a Pyrrhic victory for the senior police officer.
Following the high court ruling, a shocked Bidari had gone on long leave for the first time ever in his protracted career. He was part of the joint Special Task Force (STF) set up to track down forest brigand Veerappan and his three-year stint made him a hero in the eyes of many.
The apex court has not ordered Bidari's reinstatement as DG&IGP. It has instead insisted that the state government should re-investigate the matter and find an acceptable solution. At this point, the Karnataka government seems to be no hurry to take a decision as any hasty move could run afoul of the Supreme Court.
The controversy began in 2011 when S T Ramesh and DV Guruprasad fought for the coveted post. Ramesh was made the in-charge DG&IGP. Following this, Bidari moved the court quoting an UPSC norm and saying that his name should also be considered for the post. The government eventually appointed Nilam Achyut Rao as DG&IGP. Ramesh was never made an independent DG&IGP. Bidari was appointed police chief after Rao's retirement.
The controversy snowballed when Infant moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) challenging the state’s decision to appoint Bidari. He argued that the government had ignored his seniority. Moreover, Bidari was accused of human rights violations during his STF days.
The Karnataka high court, in its March 31, 2012 ruling, had quashed Bidari's appointment as DG&IGP on the grounds that he was indicted by the National Human Rights Commission. He was the deputy commandant at the time of the alleged atrocities committed by the Joint STF of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
The court had dismissed the petitions filed by the state government and Bidari, which had challenged the CAT verdict, arguing that it was “without merit and substance". Earlier on March 16, CAT had set aside Bidari's appointment as DG&IGP and ruled that Infant should be appointed ad hoc police chief till the government decides on the new appointment. CAT said the government should prepare a fresh list of senior IPS officers and send it to UPSC, which would suggest three names for the top post.
A division bench headed by Justice N Kumar held Bidari’s empanelment by UPSC and consequent appointment as "void and illegal." The high court, on March 30, upheld the CAT verdict and said: "In the facts of the case, we cannot find any infirmity in the said decision. It is just". It struck down Bidari's contention "absolving himself of the responsibility" of atrocities by stating he was only deputy commander of the Joint STF and not "omnipresent and omnipotent like Saddam Hussain or Muammar Gaddafi."
"Though he was not one of them, if what the two women (tribals) have said in their affidavit is true, he is worse than them (Saddam and Gaddafi),” the court said in its acerbic observations. The court directed the government to relieve Bidari forthwith and appoint Infant in his place and it warned, "otherwise they are answerable to the public of the state".
The court dismissed the memo filed by the government seeking a one-week stay on the order. It observed "if the state
government has any respect for the rule of law, womanhood, human rights, concern for the downtrodden, tribals, and socially backward communities of the state, they should relieve the third respondent (Bidari) forthwith and appoint the applicant (Infant)...”
Referring to the affidavits filed by Erammal and Nagi before an NGO, which was produced before the judge, the court stated: "Erammal was taken to Dimbam police camp, beaten with a lathi as a result of which she lost sight in her right eye, She was then taken to Mahadeshwara camp where she was stripped naked, beaten and given electric shocks on different parts of her body in front of Bidari.”
The court then cited the instance of Nagi, who was taken to the MM Hills camp, blindfolded and interrogated by Bidari, who passed electric currents through different parts of her body. The woman was then gangraped. However, Bidari has argued that the Sadashiva Commission report has denied the allegations of the tribal people against him.
Bidari has to now file a fresh petition in the high court. The court will take up the application only after the summer break.The new trial would take a few days to be concluded and is unlikely to disposed of before the end of the month. Both Bidari and Infant are due to retire on May 31.
Keeping this in mind, the state government has opted to let the issue linger. If the ploy works, the post of DG&IGP could eventually go to Mizoram DGP Lalrukhuma Pachao, who is preparing to return to the Karnataka cadre.
The man in the muddle
What the Sadashiva Commission report says about Shankar Bidari?
Chapter VII: Some Observations and Recommendations/Responsibility of Commanders of the STF
"It should have been evident even at the commencement of operations by the STF that there was scope for excesses by the STF personnel unless they were held in check by effective command and control from above. When the panel specifically questioned the Commanders of the 2 STFs in this regard, Walter Davaram, Commander of Tamil Nadu STF, could not cite any special instructions in this regard. Shankar Bidari, Commander of Karnataka STF, produced a circular dated 23.08.1995 issued by him as instructions to the police personnel under his command in this matter. It should be noted that he had taken charge as Commander of the STF on 18.08.1993 and it is strange that he issued the aforesaid instruction only after two years of his taking charge. It should also be noted that most of the allegations of excesses made by witnesses before the panel relate to the period 1993-94, prior to the issue of written instructions by Shankar Bidari. Shankar Bidari has further clarified that even the instructions issued by him on 23.08.1995 were meant for five additional platoons specially ordered by the government for the protection of some villages affected by the killing of 11 Soligas by Veerappan and his gang in 1995. Shankar Bidari has clearly stated that prior to 23.08.1995 he had not issued any instruction in this regard for the regular STF personnel. It is unfortunate that the need for guarding against excesses by the STF in the prevailing situation was not adequately realised at the commanding levels in both the STFs."
Issue Dated: Feb 5, 2017
