Kancheepuram Principal District Judge remanded DSP over personal dispute with his ex-staffer, police tell Madras HC

The Kancheepuram district police on Tuesday (September 9, 2025) accused its Principal District and Sessions Judge Pa.U. Chemmal of having passed an order to remand a Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in judicial custody due to a personal dispute between the judge and his former Personal Security Officer (PSO).

Appearing before Justice N. Sathish Kumar of the Madras High Court, Additional Public Prosecutor K.M.D. Muhilan obtained permission to hear, on the same day, an urgent petition to be moved by the police challenging the remand order passed by the district judge on Monday (September 8).

The APP told the High Court that the former PSO’s father-in-law owned a bakery. There was a dispute between the bakery owner and a customer over the quality of a product purchased by the latter, and it led to the lodging of police complaints by both parties in July 2025.

The police had received the complaints and issued Community Service Register (CSR) numbers on the basis of those two complaints, but subsequently closed both CSRs as the complainants had decided to settle the dispute among themselves without precipitating the matter any further.

“In the interregnum, there is some personal dispute between the PSO and the learned district judge. The PSO seems to have written some complaint against the judicial officer. Therefore, the judge decided to take suo motu action in the complaint registered against the PSO’s father-in-law,” the APP said.

He went on to state that the district judge had summoned the DSP to the court and asked why a First Information Report (FIR) under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 was not registered against the father-in-law of the former PSO and others.

Externment order

Immediately, the police registered an FIR, and the district judge passed an externment order on September 4, 2025, directing all the accused in the SC/ST Act case to stay away from Kancheepuram district on the ground that there was a possibility of them threatening the complainant.

“The externment order was passed under Section 10 of the SC/ST Act though it has no application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Within four days thereafter, the district judge summoned the DSP once again yesterday and asked why the accused were not arrested so far,” Mr. Muhilan complained.

“The learned judge made the DSP sit in the open court from morning till evening and then passed the remand order by invoking Section 4 (punishment for neglect of duties) of the SC/ST Act, though the Supreme Court had clearly stated such order cannot be passed without an inquiry,” the APP added.

Shocked by the submissions, Justice Kumar said: “This is something unusual. We can’t leave this matter lightly. We will see. Let your petition be numbered and listed after lunch.” On being told that the former PSO had also challenged the externment order, the judge agreed to hear that petition too on the same day.

Justice Kumar was further informed that following the personal dispute, the Principal District Judge had written to the Kancheepuram Superintendent of Police against the continuance of his PSO, following which the latter’s assignment with the PDJ was withdrawn.