{ "state": "Chandigarh", "slug": "chandigarh", "count": 10, "url": "https://datalibertarian.in/babuwatch/state/chandigarh", "cases": [ { "record_id": "CW-1996-0001", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0066", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. [name withheld]", "display_title_redacted": "Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. [name withheld]", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Sector-11, UT Police Chandigarh", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Chandigarh Administration, UT Chandigarh and Others v. [name withheld]", "case_number": "Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996", "citation": null, "judges": [ "K. S. Paripoornan", "B. P. Jeevan Reddy" ], "judgment_date": "1996-03-26", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1996, "incident_date": "1993-12-07", "incident_year": 1993, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory_display": "extortion", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Constitution Art 311(2)(b)", "Constitution Art 311(3)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": "PS Sector-11, Chandigarh", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": "yes", "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.06, "jev_p_culpable": 0.94, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector, PS Sector-11, Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Chandigarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/684094/chandigarh-administration-union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-ajay-manchanda-et/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Sub-Inspector of Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh, who had extorted Rs 50,000 from fake-passport accused [name withheld] and demanded Rs 50,000 more with threats. The DSP (Central)'s March 1994 report affirmed the complaint and recorded that witnesses were terrorised and unwilling to pursue the matter in court, leading the SSP to dismiss him under Article 311(2)(b). Setting aside the Tribunal's order for [name withheld], the Court dismissed the appeal concerning co-respondent SI, whose minor charge lacked material showing intimidation.", "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Sub-Inspector of Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh, who had extorted Rs 50,000 from fake-passport accused [name withheld] and demanded Rs 50,000 more with threats. The DSP (Central)'s March 1994 report affirmed the complaint and recorded that witnesses were terrorised and unwilling to pursue the matter in court, leading the SSP to dismiss him under Article 311(2)(b). Setting aside the Tribunal's order for [name withheld], the Court dismissed the appeal concerning co-respondent SI, whose minor charge lacked material showing intimidation.", "court_quote": "The order read as a whole and the accompanying report of the D.S.P. and the endorsement of S.S.P. on the report do clearly establish that it was respondent who was intimidating and terrorising the said persons. The judgment and order of the Tribunal in O.A. 366-Ch/94 is accordingly set aside and the appeal arising from SLP (C) 26926 of 1995 is allowed.", "court_quote_para": "14", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rs 50K-extortion SI's dismissal restored; [name withheld] relief stands (excluded).", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "1996-03-26", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "Civil Appeal No. 6954 of 1996", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/684094/chandigarh-administration-union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-ajay-manchanda-et/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-27" ], "merged_case_id": "CHANDI-012", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1996-0010", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0565", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.", "display_title_redacted": "Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Sectors 37-38-40-41 crossing", "police_station_or_unit": "Punjab Armed Police (bus PIC-556, requisitioned for Chandigarh); PS Sector 39", "court": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "court_as_verified": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Rattan Chand v. Chandigarh Administration & Ors.", "case_number": "Civil Writ Petition No. 11670 of 1993", "citation": "2(1997) ACC 108", "judges": [ "R.L. Anand" ], "judgment_date": "1996-11-08", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1996, "incident_date": "1990-10-23", "incident_year": 1990, "category": "Protest policing", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "disproportionate_force", "subcategory": "disproportionate_force", "subcategory_display": "disproportionate force", "protest_override_heuristic": true, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Assistant Sub-Inspector", "role": "named_only", "unit": "Punjab Armed Police (lodged FIR No. 207/1990, PS Sector 39)", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:named_only", "key2:no", "key2_agy:no", "key2_gemapi:unclear", "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "named_only", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": "no", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.93, "jev_p_culpable": 0.05, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Assistant Sub-Inspector, Punjab Armed Police (lodged FIR No. 207/1990, PS Sector 39)" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": 21, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Sectors 37-38-40-41 crossing man, age 21" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 100000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128920/rattan-chand-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1366333/" ], "summary": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court held Chandigarh Administration and Punjab jointly and severally liable for the 23 October 1990 police firing on anti-Mandal demonstrators at the Sectors 37-38 crossing, in which a 21-year-old driver was killed. The Court found no warning, unlawful-assembly declaration, lathi charge, tear gas or aerial fire had been shown, held straightway firing itself presumptive proof of the State's tortious act, and awarded the father 1,00,000 compensation within three months on strict public-law liability. The police claim of self-defence was rejected. ASI (Punjab Armed Police) led the party and lodged FIR No. 207/1990; no individual officer was held personally liable. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court held Chandigarh Administration and Punjab jointly and severally liable for the 23 October 1990 police firing on anti-Mandal demonstrators at the Sectors 37-38 crossing, in which a 21-year-old driver was killed. The Court found no warning, unlawful-assembly declaration, lathi charge, tear gas or aerial fire had been shown, held straightway firing itself presumptive proof of the State's tortious act, and awarded the father 1,00,000 compensation within three months on strict public-law liability. The police claim of self-defence was rejected. ASI (Punjab Armed Police) led the party and lodged FIR No. 207/1990; no individual officer was held personally liable.", "court_quote": "To resort to straightway firing in itself is the presumptive proof of the torturous act committed by the State and its functionaries and under the garb of so-called right of self-defence, the life of an individual cannot be taken nor it can be permitted to be taken.", "court_quote_para": "6", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Straightway police firing on demonstrators without warning; death held tortious, Rs 1L.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Protest policing", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "1996-11-08", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "2(1997) ACC 108", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [ "summary" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/128920/rattan-chand-vs-state-of-punjab-and-others/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1366333/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-43" ], "merged_case_id": "SWFAKEEN-030", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1997-0003", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0065", "alias_merged_ids": [ "CWC-0629" ], "display_title": "Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs [name withheld]", "display_title_redacted": "Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs [name withheld]", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station North, Chandigarh", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors vs [name withheld]", "case_number": null, "citation": "(1997) 3 SCC 68; AIR 1997 SC 1201", "judges": [ "B.P. Jeevan Reddy", "Sujata V. Manohar" ], "judgment_date": "1997-02-14", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1997, "incident_date": "1991-07-03", "incident_year": 1991, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory": "extortion", "subcategory_display": "extortion", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "Constitution Art 311(2)(b)", "Constitution Art 311(3)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector No. CHG/1", "unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.08, "jev_p_culpable": 0.9, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector No. CHG/1, UT Police Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Chandigarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1573476/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/february/66.php", "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676917/union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-mohinder-singh-respondent/" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. SI (No.CHG/1, PS North) picked up a Chandigarh man from his house around 11:45 pm on 3/4 July 1991 with two guests, detained and tortured him in the station on a baseless plea of harbouring terrorists, and demanded Rs.60,000 for release, accepting Rs.20,000. SP Intelligence Baldev Singh's inquiry of 5 July 1991 found the arrest baseless and aimed at extortion, noting the SI intimidated the complainant even in the SP's presence. SSP Chandigarh dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) as inquiry was not reasonably practicable, and the IGP upheld it, but the CAT quashed the dismissal. The Supreme Court held the SSP justified in dispensing with inquiry, allowed the UT's appeal, and restored the dismissal.", "summary_verified": "SI (No.CHG/1, PS North) picked up a Chandigarh man from his house around 11:45 pm on 3/4 July 1991 with two guests, detained and tortured him in the station on a baseless plea of harbouring terrorists, and demanded Rs.60,000 for release, accepting Rs.20,000. SP Intelligence Baldev Singh's inquiry of 5 July 1991 found the arrest baseless and aimed at extortion, noting the SI intimidated the complainant even in the SP's presence. SSP Chandigarh dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) as inquiry was not reasonably practicable, and the IGP upheld it, but the CAT quashed the dismissal. The Supreme Court held the SSP justified in dispensing with inquiry, allowed the UT's appeal, and restored the dismissal.", "court_quote": "It is also reported that the other persons who were arrested with a Chandigarh man, and who were present there, immediately left his office terrified by the threats held out by the respondent. In such a situation - and keeping in view that all this was happening in the year 1991 in the State of Punjab - the Senior Superintendent of Police cannot be said to be not justified in holding that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry against the respondent.", "court_quote_para": "6", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "SC restored Art.311(2)(b) dismissal of SI for illegal detention, torture and Rs.20,000 extortion.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "1997-02-14", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(1997) 3 SCC 68; AIR 1997 SC 1201", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1573476/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/index.php?go=1997/february/66.php", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/676917/union-territory-chandigarh-and-others-appellant-hash-mohinder-singh-respondent/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-27", "chunk-41" ], "merged_case_id": "SWEXTORT-011", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-1998-0002", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0064", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.[name withheld]", "display_title_redacted": "Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.[name withheld]", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Chandigarh Administration and Others v. Ex. S.[name withheld]", "case_number": "Civil Appeal No. 2498 of 1997", "citation": "(1998) 3 AWC 1838", "judges": [ "S. C. Agrawal", "G. T. Nanavati" ], "judgment_date": "1998-03-27", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 1998, "incident_date": "1991-01-29", "incident_year": 1991, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [ "PC Act 1988 s.7", "Constitution Art 311(2)(b)", "Constitution Art 311(3)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.07, "jev_p_culpable": 0.91, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Chandigarh woman" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "dismissal", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/681808/chandigarh-administration-and-others-vs-exsi-gurdit-singh/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad0de4b0149711410628" ], "summary": "The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Chandigarh Sub-Inspector, caught red-handed in uniform on 29 January 1991 accepting a Rs 2,000 bribe at the complainant's residence for releasing gold ornaments and articles retained at the police station. The SSP had dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) on a DSP's report that he was a terror in the area and witnesses would not depose freely, while a Section 7 PC Act case went to the CBI. Setting aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order, the Court held the dismissal justified, noting the Tribunal had ignored the finality clause in Article 311(3) and that criminal-trial witnesses had indeed turned hostile. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court restored the dismissal of Chandigarh Sub-Inspector, caught red-handed in uniform on 29 January 1991 accepting a Rs 2,000 bribe at the complainant's residence for releasing gold ornaments and articles retained at the police station. The SSP had dismissed him under Article 311(2)(b) on a DSP's report that he was a terror in the area and witnesses would not depose freely, while a Section 7 PC Act case went to the CBI. Setting aside the Tribunal's reinstatement order, the Court held the dismissal justified, noting the Tribunal had ignored the finality clause in Article 311(3) and that criminal-trial witnesses had indeed turned hostile.", "court_quote": "Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority was not justified in holding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the Tribunal.", "court_quote_para": "9", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Bribe-taking SI's Art 311(2)(b) dismissal restored by SC; verified.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "1998-03-27", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "(1998) 3 AWC 1838", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/681808/chandigarh-administration-and-others-vs-exsi-gurdit-singh/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad0de4b0149711410628", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-27" ], "merged_case_id": "CHANDI-010", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2005-0007", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0335", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh)", "display_title_redacted": "Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh)", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Punjab Police (then DGP)", "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Punjab Police Director General of Police vs State (Admn., U.T. Chandigarh)", "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 1998 (with Crl.A. No. 430 of 1999)", "citation": "(2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104", "judges": [ "K.G. Balakrishnan", "B.N. Srikrishna" ], "judgment_date": "2005-07-27", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2005, "incident_date": "1988-07-18", "incident_year": 1988, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 354", "IPC 509" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Director General of Police", "unit": "Punjab Police", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.21, "jev_p_culpable": 0.85, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Director General of Police, Punjab Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "Chandigarh woman", "name": null } ], "victims_redacted": [ { "age": null, "gender": "female", "descriptor": "a woman" } ], "anonymised": true, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "mixed", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1292562/", "secondary_sources": [], "summary": "The Supreme Court dismissed former Punjab DGP K.P.S. Gill's appeal (Crl. A. 1032/1998) and upheld his conviction under Sections 354 and 509 IPC for slapping the posterior of a woman senior IAS officer at a Chandigarh dinner party on 18 July 1988. The Sessions Judge had replaced the custodial sentence with release on probation and a Rs 50,000 fine (half to complainant), but the High Court in revision enhanced the fine to Rs 2,00,000 payable entirely to the prosecutrix plus Rs 25,000 costs — which the Supreme Court left undisturbed, noting the Rs 2 lakh lay in court deposit for disposal by the Punjab & Haryana CJ at the complainant's request (donation to a women's organisation). The Court also dismissed the complainant's appeal (Crl. A. 430/1999) seeking enhancement, noting Gill had completed probation without violation. The accused's conspiracy defence was recorded and rejected. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Supreme Court dismissed former Punjab DGP K.P.S. Gill's appeal (Crl. A. 1032/1998) and upheld his conviction under Sections 354 and 509 IPC for slapping the posterior of a woman senior IAS officer at a Chandigarh dinner party on 18 July 1988. The Sessions Judge had replaced the custodial sentence with release on probation and a Rs 50,000 fine (half to complainant), but the High Court in revision enhanced the fine to Rs 2,00,000 payable entirely to the prosecutrix plus Rs 25,000 costs — which the Supreme Court left undisturbed, noting the Rs 2 lakh lay in court deposit for disposal by the Punjab & Haryana CJ at the complainant's request (donation to a women's organisation). The Court also dismissed the complainant's appeal (Crl. A. 430/1999) seeking enhancement, noting Gill had completed probation without violation. The accused's conspiracy defence was recorded and rejected.", "court_quote": "we find no merit in the appeal preferred by the accused. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Supreme Court dismissed Gill's appeal, upholding the ss.354/509 conviction (probation, Rs 50,000 fine); matches conviction_upheld.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "(2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2005-07-27", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "(2005) 6 SCC 161; AIR 2005 SC 3104", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "wrong_facts", "corrections_applied": [ "summary" ] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1292562/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-29" ], "merged_case_id": "SWCUSTOD-008", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2007-0012", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0068", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others", "display_title_redacted": "Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh", "court": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "court_as_verified": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "Chandigarh Man v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh) and Others", "case_number": "Civil Writ Petition No. 11943 of 2007", "citation": "(2007) 10 P&H CK 0167", "judges": [ "Uma Nath Singh", "Rajive Bhalla" ], "judgment_date": "2007-10-09", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2007, "incident_date": "2007-07-11", "incident_year": 2007, "category": "Custodial death", "admin_category": "brutality", "admin_subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory": "custodial_death", "subcategory_display": "custodial death", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding_compensation", "sections": [ "IPC 304", "Constitution Art. 226", "Constitution Art. 227" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "role": "held_liable", "unit": "Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2:no", "key2_agy:no", "key2_union:unclear", "key2_gemapi:unclear", "key2_openrouter:no" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "no", "key2_agy": "no", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "unclear", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "no", "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.16, "jev_p_culpable": 0.82, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector, Police Station Manimajra, Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": 21, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Chandigarh man, age 21" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "compensation_only", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": 995000, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/174790/phoolwati-appellant-hash-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-and-others-respondent-1/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4948c607dba348f00d236" ], "summary": "A Division Bench partly allowed the writ of Phoolwati, mother of 21-year-old a Chandigarh man, who died in custody at PS Manimajra on 11 July 2007 after being taken to SI 's first-floor room and found fallen from a height. The Court accepted the SDM's magisterial enquiry finding the SI guilty of negligence and gross dereliction, noted D.K. Basu violations including no arrest memo or intimation, and awarded Rs 9.95 lakh compensation computed on multiplier principles, payable by the UT Administration within three months. It declined the CBI-transfer prayer as the Crime Branch probe, magisterial enquiry, post-mortem and CCTV record left little scope for further investigation. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "A Division Bench partly allowed the writ of Phoolwati, mother of 21-year-old a Chandigarh man, who died in custody at PS Manimajra on 11 July 2007 after being taken to SI 's first-floor room and found fallen from a height. The Court accepted the SDM's magisterial enquiry finding the SI guilty of negligence and gross dereliction, noted D.K. Basu violations including no arrest memo or intimation, and awarded Rs 9.95 lakh compensation computed on multiplier principles, payable by the UT Administration within three months. It declined the CBI-transfer prayer as the Crime Branch probe, magisterial enquiry, post-mortem and CCTV record left little scope for further investigation.", "court_quote": "In the instant case, a Magisterial enquiry was ordered after the incident and a SDM (an IAS officer) was assigned that job who on a detailed and thorough enquiry has found accused [name withheld]. 6 [name withheld] guilty of negligence and gross dereliction in performance of his duties by not making provision for guarding of the deceased during his stay in the Police Station between 12.57 noon to 3.00 PM on the date of the incident.", "court_quote_para": "8", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Rs 9.95L for Manimajra custodial death; agent IK link is the later bail order in same FIR, not this judgment.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Custodial death", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2007-10-09", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 995,000.", "disposition": "Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only)", "source": "(2007) 10 P&H CK 0167", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/174790/phoolwati-appellant-hash-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-and-others-respondent-1/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b4948c607dba348f00d236", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-36" ], "merged_case_id": "CHANDI-014", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2009-0006", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0067", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.", "display_title_redacted": "UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "court": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "court_as_verified": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "UT Police Sub-Inspector v. C.B.I.", "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 915-SB of 2007", "citation": "(2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518", "judges": [ "K. C. Puri" ], "judgment_date": "2009-05-25", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2009, "incident_date": "2005-08-03", "incident_year": 2005, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "PC Act 1988 s.7", "PC Act 1988 s.13(2)", "PC Act 1988 s.13(1)(d)" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Sub-Inspector", "unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "role": "convicted", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "convicted", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.06, "jev_p_culpable": 0.95, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Sub-Inspector, UT Police Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "age": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Chandigarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "imprisonment", "sentence_max_years": 1, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/119941/jaswant-singh-vs-cbi/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1253864/" ], "summary": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and confirmed his CBI-court conviction for demanding a bribe to release a motorcycle retained after a July 2005 road accident in Chandigarh. The demand of Rs 5,000, reduced to Rs 2,000, was proved by the shadow witness even though the complainant turned hostile, and the trap was upheld. The Court confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concurrently, holding the sentence in no manner excessive. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed SI 's appeal and confirmed his CBI-court conviction for demanding a bribe to release a motorcycle retained after a July 2005 road accident in Chandigarh. The demand of Rs 5,000, reduced to Rs 2,000, was proved by the shadow witness even though the complainant turned hostile, and the trap was upheld. The Court confirmed one year's rigorous imprisonment with Rs 5,000 fine each under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, concurrently, holding the sentence in no manner excessive.", "court_quote": "In view of the above discussion, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial Court stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed being without any merit.", "court_quote_para": "n/a", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "PC Act trap conviction confirmed (1-yr RI); appeal dismissed, verified.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "(2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2009-05-25", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "(2009) 3 RCR (Criminal) 518", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/119941/jaswant-singh-vs-cbi/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1253864/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-27" ], "merged_case_id": "CHANDI-013", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2021-0021", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0913", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)", "display_title_redacted": "Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": null, "court": "Supreme Court of India", "court_as_verified": "Supreme Court of India", "bench": null, "case_title": "Chandigarh Police Head Constable v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)", "case_number": "Criminal Appeal No. 2373 of 2010", "citation": "LL 2021 SC 687", "judges": [ "N.V. Ramana", "Surya Kant", "A.S. Bopanna" ], "judgment_date": "2021-11-26", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2021, "incident_date": "1999-07-10", "incident_year": 1999, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "other", "subcategory": "other", "subcategory_display": "other", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "conviction_upheld", "sections": [ "IPC 307" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Head Constable", "role": "convicted", "unit": "Chandigarh Police", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "ledger:no_row", "key2:no_row" ], "ledger_role": null, "key2": null, "key2_agy": null, "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": null, "key2_gemapi": null, "key2_openrouter": null, "key2_gpt56": null, "grok": null, "jev_risk": null, "jev_p_culpable": null, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": null, "name_public": null, "display": "Head Constable, Chandigarh Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": null, "name": null, "descriptor": "Chandigarh resident" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": "imprisonment", "sentence_max_years": 0.3, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/25593201031150131422judgement26-nov-2021-2-1277310.pdf", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/surinder-singh-v-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-687-404947.pdf", "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61a70cac9fca196c63593f20" ], "summary": "The judgment of the Supreme Court of India records the following account. On 10 July 1999 Head Constable of Chandigarh Police entered an advocate residential office in an inebriated state, claimed to be the lane beat officer, then pointed his service pistol and threatened to kill. The Court recorded that the complainant pushed the barrel ceiling-ward so the fired shot hit the ceiling, a second attempt failed, and the appellant fled leaving his wireless set and scooter; medical examination the same evening found him under alcohol influence. The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act with 3 years RI. The Supreme Court held eyewitness and CFSL ballistic evidence proved attempt to murder, set aside the Arms Act conviction for want of a Section 5/7 misdemeanour, maintained the Section 307 conviction, and reduced sentence to the period already undergone (3 months 19 days). Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "On 10 July 1999 Head Constable of Chandigarh Police entered an advocate residential office in an inebriated state, claimed to be the lane beat officer, then pointed his service pistol and threatened to kill. The Court recorded that the complainant pushed the barrel ceiling-ward so the fired shot hit the ceiling, a second attempt failed, and the appellant fled leaving his wireless set and scooter; medical examination the same evening found him under alcohol influence. The trial court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court convicted him under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act with 3 years RI. The Supreme Court held eyewitness and CFSL ballistic evidence proved attempt to murder, set aside the Arms Act conviction for want of a Section 5/7 misdemeanour, maintained the Section 307 conviction, and reduced sentence to the period already undergone (3 months 19 days).", "court_quote": "While the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellant under Section 27 of the Arms Act is set aside, his conviction under Section 307 IPC is maintained.", "court_quote_para": "36", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "SC maintained Section 307 conviction of drunk head constable who fired service pistol; Arms Act charge set aside.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": null, "action_type": "Conviction", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Trial court (as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment)", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Supreme Court of India judgment.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation", "source": "LL 2021 SC 687", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." }, { "date": "2021-11-26", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Supreme Court of India", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.", "disposition": "Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card)", "source": "LL 2021 SC 687", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/25593201031150131422judgement26-nov-2021-2-1277310.pdf", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/surinder-singh-v-state-union-territory-of-chandigarh-687-404947.pdf", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61a70cac9fca196c63593f20", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-77" ], "merged_case_id": "GAP2-60-003", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2023-0030", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-0060", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "display_title_redacted": "UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": "Chandigarh", "police_station_or_unit": "Night patrolling, Sector-20/Aroma Light Point", "court": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "court_as_verified": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "bench": null, "case_title": "UT Police Constable vs Union of India and Others", "case_number": "CWP-37381-2018", "citation": "2023:PHHC:137380-DB", "judges": [ "Deepak Sibal", "Sukhvinder Kaur" ], "judgment_date": "2023-10-19", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2023, "incident_date": "2012-07-25", "incident_year": 2012, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "corruption", "admin_subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory": "bribery_pc_act", "subcategory_display": "bribery pc act", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "disciplinary_upheld", "sections": [], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Constable", "unit": "UT Police Chandigarh", "role": "held_liable", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "gate_reasons": [ "key2_gemapi:unclear" ], "ledger_role": "held_liable", "key2": "yes", "key2_agy": "yes", "key2_claude": null, "key2_union": "yes", "key2_gemapi": "unclear", "key2_openrouter": "yes", "key2_gpt56": "yes", "grok": null, "jev_risk": 0.08, "jev_p_culpable": 0.94, "key2_gpt": null, "later_outcome": "none_found", "name_public": null, "display": "Constable, UT Police Chandigarh" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "age": null, "gender": "female", "name": null, "descriptor": "Chandigarh woman" }, { "age": null, "gender": "male", "name": null, "descriptor": "Chandigarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 2, "sentence_type": "fine", "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103983903/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-upholds-punishment-stopping-fifteen-annual-increment-constable-takes-rs-300-bribe-241323", "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/pardeep-kumar-v-union-of-india-and-otherswatermark-1556597.pdf" ], "summary": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sukhvinder Kaur, J., Deepak Sibal, J. concurring) dismissed the writ of Chandigarh Police constable, upholding the stoppage of 10 annual increments with permanent effect (reduced by the DIG from 15). On the intervening night of 25/26 July 2012, Kumar and fellow patrol constable stopped and harassed a couple near Aroma Light Point, Sector-20, and took Rs. 300 illegal gratification, later returned to the complainant's friend. No criminal Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution was involved; culpability is departmental only, concurrently confirmed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which held the penalty not excessive. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.", "summary_verified": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court (Sukhvinder Kaur, J., Deepak Sibal, J. concurring) dismissed the writ of Chandigarh Police constable, upholding the stoppage of 10 annual increments with permanent effect (reduced by the DIG from 15). On the intervening night of 25/26 July 2012, Kumar and fellow patrol constable stopped and harassed a couple near Aroma Light Point, Sector-20, and took Rs. 300 illegal gratification, later returned to the complainant's friend. No criminal Prevention of Corruption Act prosecution was involved; culpability is departmental only, concurrently confirmed by the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities, the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which held the penalty not excessive.", "court_quote": "It has also been rightly observed by the Tribunal that a perusal of the allegations proved and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner will show, that the same is not excessive and it cannot be said that it pricks the conscience of a prudent man, considering the fact that a protector of law chose to violate the law himself, by demanding illegal gratification and causing harassment.", "court_quote_para": "15", "confidence": "high", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Primary judgment verified: Rs 300 bribe, increment-stoppage penalty upheld; departmental only, no PC Act trial.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2023-10-19", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "Punjab and Haryana High Court", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld service punishment imposed on police personnel.", "disposition": "Disciplinary action · Procedural only", "source": "2023:PHHC:137380-DB", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-19", "scope": "Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass", "method": "skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl)", "result": "holds", "corrections_applied": [] } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-19", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103983903/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/punjab-haryana-high-court-upholds-punishment-stopping-fifteen-annual-increment-constable-takes-rs-300-bribe-241323", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/pardeep-kumar-v-union-of-india-and-otherswatermark-1556597.pdf", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": true, "verified_by": [ "chunk-15", "chunk-r08" ], "merged_case_id": "CHANDI-006", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" }, { "record_id": "CW-2025-0078", "status": "current", "merged_id": "CWC-1383", "alias_merged_ids": [], "display_title": "Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others", "display_title_redacted": "Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others", "state": "Chandigarh", "district": "Chandigarh", "district_at_time": null, "city_town": null, "police_station_or_unit": "Special Investigation Team, Chandigarh Police", "court": "High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh", "court_as_verified": "High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh", "bench": null, "case_title": "Chandigarh Man vs State Of Ut Chandigarh And Others", "case_number": "CRM-M No. 36362 of 2025", "citation": null, "judges": [ "[name withheld]" ], "judgment_date": "2025-07-16", "date_precision": "day", "judgment_year": 2025, "incident_date": "2025-03-13", "incident_year": 2025, "category": "Other", "admin_category": "misconduct", "admin_subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory": "dereliction_evidence_tampering", "subcategory_display": "dereliction evidence tampering", "protest_override_heuristic": false, "outcome_type": "adverse_finding", "sections": [ "Section 109, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" ], "officers": [ { "name": null, "rank": "Superintendent of Police (SIT in-charge)", "role": "named_in_finding", "unit": "Chandigarh Police", "publish_grade": "unnamed", "name_public": null, "display": "Superintendent of Police (SIT in-charge), Chandigarh Police" } ], "officer_count": 1, "victims": [ { "name": null, "gender": "male", "descriptor": "Chandigarh man" } ], "victims_redacted": null, "anonymised": false, "victim_count": 1, "sentence_type": null, "sentence_max_years": null, "compensation_inr": null, "force": "state_police", "primary_source_url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/", "secondary_sources": [ "https://theprint.in/judiciary/sit-making-craters-in-probe-hcs-earful-to-chandigarh-police-in-colonel-bath-assault-case/2692785/", "https://theprint.in/india/colonel-assault-3-months-ago-chandigarh-sit-was-handed-case-for-fair-probe-now-accused-cops-untraceable/2693325/", "https://www.barandbench.com/news/army-officer-assault-punjab-and-haryana-hc-says-chandigarh-police-probe-tainted-transfers-case-to-cbi", "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/" ], "summary": "The High Court held that there are no prospects of a free and fair investigation of the assault case by the Investigating Agency of UT, Chandigarh. The Court found that the Chandigarh Police SIT was proceeding in a tainted manner to give benefit to the accused serving police officials and was trying to create loopholes in the investigation. The Court noted that the SIT called the accused untraceable though all were serving police officials and had already made up its mind to delete the attempt-to-murder charge. The Court withdrew the investigation from UT, Chandigarh with immediate effect and handed it to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court later dismissed the accused officers' petition challenging the transfer, leaving the High Court's order intact.", "summary_verified": "The High Court held that there are no prospects of a free and fair investigation of the assault case by the Investigating Agency of UT, Chandigarh. The Court found that the Chandigarh Police SIT was proceeding in a tainted manner to give benefit to the accused serving police officials and was trying to create loopholes in the investigation. The Court noted that the SIT called the accused untraceable though all were serving police officials and had already made up its mind to delete the attempt-to-murder charge. The Court withdrew the investigation from UT, Chandigarh with immediate effect and handed it to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The Supreme Court later dismissed the accused officers' petition challenging the transfer, leaving the High Court's order intact.", "court_quote": "there are no prospects of free and fair investigation in the case", "court_quote_para": "quoted in report of judgment", "confidence": "medium", "verdict": "accept", "verdict_note": "Primary source URL is invalid: indiankanoon.org/doc/136695872/ returns 'Invalid input: digits only' (no such document). All other case facts verified via ThePrint (2692785, 2693325), Bar and Bench (headline confirms tainted-probe/CBI-transfer), and a valid Indian Kanoon Supreme Court order (doc 60554382, SLP Diary No. 41450/2025) which confirms CRM-M No. 36362/2025, HC order dated 16-07-2025, and the Supreme Court's dismissal of the accused police officers' SLP on 04-08-2025.", "verification_status": "V2", "verification_badge": "V2 · Externally reported", "tier_badge": "Externally reported", "tier": "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded", "tier_history": [ "Tier A — Externally reported or officially recorded" ], "allegations": [ { "category": "Other", "primary": true, "position": "Material fact supported", "position_explainer": "Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.", "official_finding_relation": "supports allegation" } ], "institutional_response": [ { "date": "2025-07-16", "action_type": "Order issued", "status": "Concluded", "authority": "High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh", "independence": "External", "legal_effect": "Binding", "description": "The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh recorded adverse findings against police personnel.", "disposition": "adverse finding compensation", "source": "CRM-M No. 36362 of 2025", "recheck": "Not yet re-checked." } ], "later_proceedings": [], "final_outcome_url": null, "followup_history": [ { "date": "2026-09-24", "scope": "Swarm scout and independent verification pass (Muse Spark)." } ], "followup_status": "checked", "last_checked": "2026-09-24", "link_checked_per_url": [ { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://theprint.in/judiciary/sit-making-craters-in-probe-hcs-earful-to-chandigarh-police-in-colonel-bath-assault-case/2692785/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://theprint.in/india/colonel-assault-3-months-ago-chandigarh-sit-was-handed-case-for-fair-probe-now-accused-cops-untraceable/2693325/", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://www.barandbench.com/news/army-officer-assault-punjab-and-haryana-hc-says-chandigarh-police-probe-tainted-transfers-case-to-cbi", "link_checked": null }, { "url": "https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60554382/", "link_checked": null } ], "source_assessment": { "established": null, "basis": null }, "v3_basis": null, "publication_basis": null, "reviews": [], "retracted": { "is_retracted": false }, "fidelity_checked": false, "verified_by": [ "swarm-verify-cop-ch-hc" ], "merged_case_id": "cop-ch-hc-0", "officers_named_public": 0, "record_flag": null, "service": "police", "watch": "babuwatch" } ] }