In a distinct verdict, the Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Police to publish the details of police officers who have been found guilty of corruption or human rights violations in its official website.

The High Court ruled that the Police cannot shield the names of officers who have been found guilty or dismissed from service on charges of corruption or human rights violations.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan stated it when disposing of a petition filed by the State Public Information Officer of the Crime Records Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram.

The Information Officer moved the High Court challenging an Order of the State Information Commission (SIC) which required police to publish details of corrupt police officers found guilty in a court of law or dismissed from service on charges of corruption and human rights violations. Moreover, the State Information Commission also directed the authority to upload the names of the police officers against whom charges of corruption or human rights violations were established after an investigation on the police website.

The Court upheld the ruling of the State Information Commission and directed that the names of police officers convicted on corruption or human rights violations like cases of wrongful confinement, use of abusive language, sexual abuse & rape and were removed from services after a due process of inquiry would necessarily have to be published on the official website of the police.

“The petitioners will not be justified in shielding the names of such police officers and will be bound to publish the same notwithstanding the fact that Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 does not oblige them to publish such information.” Court said.

The Court clarified that the details of police officers against whom the offences had been established on investigation, but a conclusive finding has not been arrived at by a court of law need not be published. This was necessary to ensure that there is a fine balance between the goal of the Act of attaining transparency of information as well as safeguarding the public interest, the Court stated.

.

.