Complex Police Commisioner Dismissal Procedures Renew Interference Concerns

Allegations against Police Commissioner Anil Kumar Dip have intensified following accusations made by Missie Moustass. The police have confirmed that an investigation is currently underway; however, Commissioner Dip remains in his position despite being featured in several videos related to the allegations.

His ongoing leadership over the police force conducting these investigations is noteworthy, as his role is protected by constitutional provisions.

Milan Meetarbhan, a constitutional expert, explained that the Commissioner is not the only official to enjoy this kind of protection, often referred to in legal terms as “security of tenure.”

Other positions, such as the Director of Audit and the Director of Public Prosecutions, also benefit from similar protections.

This is enshrined in the constitution to ensure that these officials can perform their duties independently and without fear of undue influence.

In the 56 years since the current constitution was established, there has been only one instance where constitutional dismissal procedures have been initiated, relating to the late Raj Dayal, a former police commissioner.

The process for dismissing a police commissioner is complex and outlined in Article 93 of the constitution.

If a commissioner is deemed “unable” to fulfill their duties or guilty of “misconduct,” the President of the Republic is required to establish a tribunal composed of three former or sitting judges from the Supreme Court or from a Commonwealth country.

According to former judge Vinod Boolell, who previously adjudicated on an injunction request from Raj Dayal regarding the tribunal formed at that time, the term “inability” refers to the incapacity to continue performing duties due to an obstruction or a physical or mental illness.

“Misconduct,” on the other hand, can involve bribery, interference, or actions that violate the law.

Milan Meetarbhan further clarified that it is the tribunal that determines whether the Commissioner is guilty of the allegations against him.

Following their findings, a report is submitted to the President, who must make a decision autonomously, based solely on the tribunal’s conclusions.

Vinod Boolell noted that the tribunal’s report can be challenged through a judicial review, but importantly, the President’s decision is not subject to such review, as he possesses total immunity.

The ongoing situation is illustrating the intricate balance of accountability and protection within the framework of constitutional law, as further developments is awaited in this high-profile case.

Source: l’Express