
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 277 (ii) The Police Act, 1861 4.77 In addition to the above discussed provisions of IPC, a police official can be held liable for violating laws and rules through internal police mechanisms of remedial action such as those provided for under the Police Act, 1861. With provisions such as section 7, which deals with the "Appointment, dismissal, etc of inferior officers"; and section 29 that deals with "Penalties for neglect of duty etc." 4.78 Such proceedings usually take place through internal disciplinary authorities that collect evidence and pass binding orders.129 As per the Act 1861, orders from these proceedings can be challenged before the High Court and the Supreme Court. However, it appears from caselaw on the issue that the powers of the courts in terms of interfering with the order(s) of these proceedings is largely contained to assessing the punishment given on the ground of proportionality.130 |
||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |