In State of Tamil Nadu & Another v. Vijarani, 2025 Live law (Mad) 431, decided on 20 November 2025 by the Madras High Court (Bench: Justice N. Sathish Kumar & Justice M. Jothiraman; Case No. LPA No. 45 of 2025 and CMP No. 21496 of 2025), the Court held that a Superintendent of Police (SP) cannot be held personally liable for delays by Investigating Officers (IOs) in filing charge sheets or closure reports. While the SP has supervisory duties, the statutory responsibility to submit such reports lies with the IO. Therefore, disciplinary action against the SP for such lapses was deemed unwarranted.
Background of the Case
The writ petition arose from a complaint relating to missing jewels lodged in 2015. Although the First Information Report (FIR) had been registered promptly, no final report was submitted even after several years. Upon judicial inquiry, the authorities disclosed that the investigation had been closed in 2017; however:
- No closure report was filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.
- The complainant was never informed about the closure.
Disturbed by the procedural negligence, the single judge earlier directed:
- Action against 14 Station House Officers who had held charge during the investigation period.
- The Director General of Police to consider disciplinary action against the SPs who supervised the jurisdiction at the relevant time.
This direction against the SPs was challenged and became the focus of the present appeal.
Arguments Presented
The Additional Public Prosecutor contended that:
- While SPs hold supervisory authority, the duty to file charge sheets or closure reports rests solely with the Investigating Officer (IO).
- Administrative oversight cannot translate into personal liability in absence of wilful default or mala fide conduct.
The respondent argued that supervisory responsibility includes ensuring timely compliance with statutory procedure.
Court’s Observations
The division bench acknowledged that SPs have a role in monitoring investigations. However, it distinguished monitoring responsibility from operational liability, noting:
“Merely because some of the officers have violated the procedure and not filed final report or closure report in time before the Court, that negligence cannot be attributed to the Superintendent of Police.”
The judges emphasized that the IO is the statutory functionary responsible for the filing of reports and cannot shift consequences of delay upwards in the hierarchy.
Decision
The court set aside the single judge’s direction calling for action against the SPs, holding it neither justified nor proportionate. However, it clarified that:
- All other directions issued by the single judge, including action against negligent SHOs, must be scrupulously implemented by the DGP.
Significance of the Judgment
This ruling marks a pivotal clarification in the domain of administrative accountability within law enforcement:
Reaffirmation of Statutory Responsibility: The judgment reinforces that the duty to file charge sheets or closure reports under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), lies squarely with the Investigating Officer (IO), not with supervisory officers like the Superintendent of Police (SP).
Boundary Between Oversight and Liability: By distinguishing supervisory oversight from operational liability, the Court draws a clear line between administrative vigilance and statutory execution. This protects supervisory officers from punitive consequences arising solely from subordinate negligence.
Alignment with Principles of Administrative Law: The decision aligns with established doctrines such as vicarious liability and command responsibility, clarifying that liability must be grounded in direct statutory breach or demonstrable mala fide conduct—not merely hierarchical association.
Implications for Disciplinary Frameworks: The interpretation may influence future disciplinary protocols under the BNSS, encouraging more precise attribution of responsibility and preventing overreach in internal accountability mechanisms.
Precedential Value: This judgment may serve as a guiding precedent for courts and administrative bodies reviewing delays or procedural lapses in criminal investigations, especially in cases involving layered command structures.
Counsel Representation
- For Petitioners: Mr. A. Damodaran, Additional Public Prosecutor
- For Respondent: Mr. N. Palani Kumar
Conclusion
The Madras High Court’s decision underscores the principle that accountability in criminal investigations must rest at appropriate operational levels. While encouraging administrative vigilance, the ruling prevents unfair penalization of officers who do not directly execute statutory duties.
