The Supreme Court on Friday intervened to set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court's order to transfer State Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu. The decision comes in response to allegations made by a businessman from Palampur, who claimed threats to his life and that of his family members.

The apex court bench, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, asserted that such a consequential decision should not be made without providing the concerned party an opportunity to present their perspective.

The court expressed its concern over the serious implications of relocating an Indian Police Service (IPS) officer like Kundu and criticized the High Court for relying substantially on previously submitted status reports without ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The bench emphasized that any order of such magnitude should comply with fair procedures, and the High Court's decision to shift Kundu was deemed to suffer from a "patent error of jurisdiction."

Last week, the Supreme Court had temporarily stayed the High Court's order, directing the high court to decide on Kundu's application for the recall of the order within two weeks. Notably, the High Court had issued the directive after finding that Kundu, in his capacity as the Director General of Police, had allegedly obstructed an ongoing investigation.

On January 2, 2024, Kundu was removed from the post of Himachal Pradesh DGP and reassigned as Principal Secretary, Ayush, in compliance with the High Court's December 26, 2023 order. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Kundu, questioned the High Court's decision, asserting that Kundu, who was set to retire in less than four months, had a spotless 35-year-long career and was not at fault in the matter.

Rohatgi argued that the high court's order, issued in suo motu proceedings, lacked fairness as Kundu was not given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him in an email by the complainant. Kundu's involvement, according to Rohatgi, was an attempt to mediate in a private dispute between two parties, and he was willing to subject the matter to a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The complainant, Nishant Sharma, alleged in an email to the high court that he and his family feared for their lives, citing attacks in Gurugram and McLeodganj. Sharma sought urgent intervention, claiming he needed protection from influential individuals. 

Case: Sanjay Kundu vs. Registrar General & Ors.