Prison official suspended for public remarks on Govindachamy's jailbreak
The disciplinary action comes even as multi-pronged investigations are under way into the high-profile security breach that caught the law enforcement and prisons administration off-guard.
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (South Zone) Dinesh B. has ordered the immediate suspension of Abdul Sattar A., Deputy Prison Officer of Kottarakara Special Sub-Jail, pending inquiry, over his recent conduct and remarks made on a news channel. The statements in question relate to the escape by Govindachamy on Friday.
According to the suspension order, Mr. Sattar allegedly made alarming claims, including that the convict had threatened to jump the jail and vowed to harm the officer's family if he escaped. He further claimed that stolen gold linked to the inmate had been hidden in graveyards in Coimbatore, and that these were being handled by certain people who purportedly backed Govindachamy in his case.
Claiming that Govindachamy had harassed numerous women prior to his arrest, Mr. Sattar went on to express a desire that the convict should be executed, even claiming that he would be willing to serve as the executioner if needed.
The order, which also stated that Mr. Sattar has previously been involved in several instances of misconduct, held that the condemnable statements have tarnished the department's image and violated Rule 62 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules as well as a circular issued by the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services. The department also emphasised that such conduct undermines public trust and professionalism expected of the prison staff.
Probe instituted
Three prison officers of the Kannur Central Prison had been suspended in the immediate aftermath of the jailbreak, with the government also instituting a special inquiry led by former Kerala High Court judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair and former State Police Chief Jacob Punnoose. The Opposition has raised allegations of security lapses and systemic negligence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
5 minutes ago
- NDTV
"Plea Not Worth Entertaining": Supreme Court Setback For Judge In Cash Row
The Supreme Court has knocked back Justice Yashwant Varma 's challenge of an in-house committee that recommended his impeachment over burnt piles of money found at his Delhi home in March. The recommendation - delivered by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Kumar - has legal sanction and is constitutionally valid, as was the three-judge committee, the court said Thursday morning, ruling Justice Varma's petition "not worth entertaining" and reproaching him for his not "confidence-inspiring" conduct. This clears the way for the impeachment process initiated last month. Justice Varma - who could become the first High Court judge in independent India to be removed from office - will now be investigated by Parliament under Articles 124, 217, and 218 of the Constitution. In his writ petition Justice Varma, listed as 'XXX' in the records, had offered the two-judge bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and AG Masih five reasons why he could not be sacked. These included questions over the jurisdiction and authority of the in-house committee to investigate a sitting judge. Justice Varma argued the committee ignored questions he had raised, and that could speak to his innocence, and denied him a fair hearing. He also argued that neither the Chief Justice of India nor the Supreme Court had 'power of superintendence', i.e., they cannot take disciplinary action against High Court judges, because their tenure is protected by the Constitution. He also argued his colleagues' recommendation "usurps parliamentary authority... it empowers the judiciary to recommend removal of Judges from constitutionally-held office". Justice Yashwant Varma Impeachment The impeachment process began July 21, i.e,. on the first day of the current Parliament session. Over 145 MPs - from the opposition and the government's ranks - submitted a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla calling for an investigation into Justice Varma and the cash-at-home row. What Is Impeachment? It is a constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting judge - specifically those from the Supreme Court or a state High Court - from his/her office. Once appointed, judges cannot be removed from office without an order from the President, who, in turn, requires consent from Parliament. NDTV Explains | How Do You Remove A Sitting Judge? Impeachment Explained The Constitution does not actually refer to the word 'impeachment', but the procedure to remove judges is outlined in the Judges Inquiry Act of 1968 and mentioned in two constitutional provisions - Article 124 (for Supreme Court judges) and Article 218 (for those from High Courts). How Is Impeachment Done? An impeachment motion can be introduced in either House of Parliament. At least 50 Rajya Sabha MPs must sign the motion - which is a record of the intention to impeach - for it to proceed further. In the Lok Sabha that number is 100. Once that threshold is reached, the Chair of the former or the Speaker of the latter, depending on which House admits the motion, will review the available materials.
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
WBJEE 2025 results deferred yet again following Calcutta HC contempt order
The declaration of the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination (WBJEE) 2025 results has once again hit a legal roadblock, with the Calcutta High Court ordering an immediate halt to the release of the results just hours before the scheduled announcement. This latest judicial intervention has sent shockwaves across the academic community, particularly among thousands of engineering and pharmacy aspirants waiting in anticipation for their ranks. WBJEE 2025: Court bars result release pending review Justice Kausik Chanda of the Calcutta High Court, in a sharply worded order, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the WBJEE Board on Wednesday. The decision came after candidates alleged that the board had violated the court's May 21 directive, linked to ongoing concerns about admission irregularities and merit list preparation. As a consequence, the High Court has stayed the declaration of WBJEE 2025 results, as well as all subsequent counselling and admission processes, until a division bench delivers a verdict on the board's appeal. WBJEE 2025 results: From Supreme Court relief to high court setback The order comes just weeks after the Supreme Court of India had stayed an earlier High Court judgment that barred the WBJEEB from using the state's revised OBC list for this year's counselling. That Supreme Court ruling had cleared the way for the results to be declared, and WBJEEB had confirmed that the results would go live on August 7, 2025. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Donating Sperm May Boost Your Income SpellRock Undo However, Wednesday's dramatic turn has rendered that plan null and void. Aspirants left adrift amid legal tug-of-war Students and parents are once again caught in a state of confusion and anxiety, as the uncertainty surrounding the WBJEE result intensifies. The board had already released provisional answer keys and completed evaluation—meaning the results were ready for publication before the court order halted the process. The delay in admissions now threatens to clash with other national-level counselling schedules, including JoSAA and private university intakes, complicating matters further for candidates aiming at multiple options. Next steps: Awaiting division bench decision With the High Court making it explicitly clear that no further steps may be taken by the board, the focus now shifts to the division bench hearing, which will determine the immediate fate of the WBJEE 2025 admission cycle. Until then, the West Bengal 2025 results remain frozen, and over one lakh candidates are left in an academic limbo—awaiting justice and clarity in a season already burdened by institutional delays and judicial overhang. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
India Today
2 hours ago
- India Today
Abu Salem to serve 60 years' prison term, no early release for now: State to court
The Maharashtra government has said that gangster Abu Salem, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case, must serve a full 60-year prison term. In an order dated July 14, 2025, the state said Salem is not entitled to remission for the time refers to a reduction in a prisoner's sentence granted by the state, often based on good behaviour or other factors. It allows for early release but does not erase the had approached the High Court earlier this year, claiming he was entitled to be released on March 31, 2025, after completing 25 years of imprisonment, including time served as an undertrial and remission earned over the years. His petition, filed through advocate Farhana Shah, argued that he had earned both general and special remissions and cited a Supreme Court order upholding a commitment made by the Indian government to Portugal that he would not be jailed for more than 25 in an affidavit filed on July 30, Nashik Road Central Prison Superintendent Aruna A Mugutrao submitted to the court that the home department had issued an order on July 14 rejecting Salem's claim. The affidavit said Salem would have to serve 60 years to be eligible for remission and can only be released after completing 25 actual years in custody—excluding remissions—due to the sovereign assurance given to Portugal at the time of his was declared a proclaimed offender on October 15, 1993, and arrested in Lisbon on September 18, 2002. He was extradited from Portugal on November 10, 2005, after India assured the Portuguese government that Salem would not face the death penalty or a sentence beyond 25 years. This assurance was key to securing his Salem was later convicted in multiple serious cases, including the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts that killed 257 people and injured over 1,400. He was sentenced to life prison authorities stated that Salem has a long and serious criminal record, including fleeing the country after the blasts.'Salem has a history which is not a palatable one at all,' the affidavit said. 'After committing many crimes, he fled the country.'The affidavit also noted that a proposal for his early release had been sent to the state home department, along with recommendations from the Advisory Board, the trial court, the police, the district magistrate, and senior prison the state home department has decided not to approve the request. Citing the enduring trauma of blast victims and the gravity of the crime, it said Salem, like the other bomb blast convicts, would be considered for remission when he serves 60 years."People who suffered in the blast are still bearing the brunt of the horrific tragedy which unfolded in 1993," the government said.- EndsMust Watch
