High court grants Punjab 4 weeks to disclose expenses on ads, vehicles

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted four weeks as the last opportunity to the Punjab Chief Secretary to furnish details of expenses incurred on government advertisements and procurement of new vehicles for police officers.

Less than a month after Justice Sandeep Moudgil called for the information, the Bench was informed that collating the data was a time-consuming process requiring inputs from multiple departments across the state.

As the matter came up for resumed hearing, an affidavit filed by Punjab Chief Secretary KAP Sinha was placed before the Bench stating that the Department of Home Affairs had sought the requisite details from the offices concerned.

The Department of Public Relations in response claimed that the required information could be generated only after reviewing voluminous records requiring additional time. The Department of Home Affairs, in turn, asked for the grant of sufficient time to the Department of Public Relations for compliance.

Acknowledging the time-consuming nature of the process, Justice Moudgil observed the request was genuine, while granting a last opportunity of four weeks.

The court made it clear that the necessary information was required to be submitted by March 7 through an affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary.

Justice Moudgil was hearing multiple petitions, including a case where the investigation was stalled due to the absence of tools required to verify the genuineness of CCTV footage. The court, on a previous date of hearing, had directed the Chief Secretary to provide details of expenses incurred by the state government on advertisements showcasing its achievements and on purchasing new vehicles for the police officials. The Bench had also rapped the state for not showing a willingness to equip itself with modern investigative and scientific techniques.

The admonition and the direction came after budgetary constraints were cited for the delay in upgrading the forensic science laboratories in the state. Referring to the fallout of not equipping the law enforcing agencies with necessary facilities, Justice Moudgil had asserted there was an inordinate delay in filing challans or the final investigation report ultimately resulting in providing undue leverage and advantages to accused.

Pointing at the delays in criminal investigations due to a lack of equipment for analysing crucial evidence, the court had also emphasised the infringement of the accused person's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Justice Moudgil at that time had observed that substantial funds had already been sanctioned and spent on upgrading the labs. Yet, the affidavit and court proceedings revealed that only cases under the NDPS Act were being handled at the regional forensic labs, with no facilities for video forensics or other critical investigative needs.