Gujarat High Court Seeks Reply From Home Secretary, DGP Over Constable’s Alleged Non-Compliance With Re-Transfer Order
The Gujarat High Court has sought a response from the state’s Principal Secretary (Home) Sanjeev Kumar and Director General of Police G.S. Malik, IPS (1993: Gujarat cadre), in a contempt petition filed by a police constable who has alleged that the authorities failed to comply with an earlier court direction concerning his transfer.
The petition has been filed by Kameshkumar Govindbhai Makwana, a police constable who had challenged his transfer from Morbi district to Kutch (East). According to the plea, although the High Court had earlier quashed the transfer and directed the authorities to re-transfer him to Morbi, the direction had allegedly not been implemented.
The latest proceedings were heard by a Bench comprising Justice N.S. Sanjay Gowda and Justice J.L. Odedra. The Bench has issued notices to the concerned senior officials and directed them to submit their response by October 15, 2026.
High Court Had Earlier Quashed Makwana’s Transfer
The contempt proceedings stem from an earlier judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court on August 3, 2026. In that judgment, the court had examined Makwana’s challenge to the transfer order that moved him from Morbi to Kutch (East).
The court ultimately quashed the transfer order and directed the concerned authority to issue an order re-transferring the constable from Kutch (East) back to his parent district of Morbi. The judgment examined the legal framework governing inter-district transfers of police personnel and considered whether the circumstances cited for Makwana’s transfer satisfied the applicable statutory requirements.
A key issue before the court was the transfer order dated November 30, 2024. The High Court noted that the order did not record any emergent administrative exigency requiring Makwana’s services in Kutch.
The absence of such a recorded circumstance became important because the applicable legal provisions impose specific conditions on inter-district transfers of police personnel.
Court Examined Bombay Police Act and Gujarat Police Manual
While deciding Makwana’s original petition, the High Court examined Section 28 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, along with Rules 152 and 153 of the Gujarat Police Manual. These provisions deal with the transfer of police personnel between districts and establish the framework within which such transfers are to be carried out.
The court considered whether the authorities had complied with those requirements when Makwana was moved from Morbi to Kutch (East). The judgment found that the circumstances necessary to justify such an inter-district transfer had not been recorded in the manner required by the applicable framework.The court therefore concluded that the transfer could not be sustained on the basis placed before it and proceeded to quash the order. The direction to re-transfer Makwana to Morbi followed from that finding. The concerned authorities were accordingly required to issue an appropriate order implementing the court’s direction.
Constable Files Contempt Petition Alleging Non-Compliance
After the August judgment, Makwana approached the High Court again, this time through advocate Prashant Chavda, alleging that the earlier order had not been complied with.
The latest petition is therefore not a fresh challenge to the original transfer itself. Instead, it concerns the alleged failure to implement the direction contained in the High Court’s earlier judgment.
Makwana has contended that despite the court’s direction, the required re-transfer from Kutch (East) to Morbi had not been carried out. The High Court has now sought an explanation from the senior officials concerned before deciding the next course of action.
The notices issued to the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP give the authorities an opportunity to place their position before the court and explain the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the earlier order.
DGP’s Earlier Transfer Order Came Under Scrutiny
The original dispute began with a transfer ordered by the DGP in November 2024, under which Makwana was moved from Morbi district to Kutch (East). The transfer was subsequently followed by another order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Morbi, in February 2025.
Makwana challenged the transfer before the High Court, questioning the legal basis for moving him from his parent district to another district.The case consequently involved not just the individual transfer but also the interpretation of the rules governing inter-district transfers of police personnel in Gujarat. The High Court’s August judgment examined the statutory provisions as well as administrative guidelines relied upon by the state authorities in support of the transfer.
2006 DGP Guideline Also Considered
During the earlier proceedings, the State had relied on a 2006 guideline issued by the DGP concerning police transfers. The High Court examined that guideline in the context of the statutory provisions governing transfers.
The court held that the administrative guideline could not override the applicable statutory provisions. In other words, an internal or administrative guideline could not be relied upon in a manner that displaced the requirements contained in the governing law and rules.
This aspect of the August judgment formed an important part of the court’s reasoning while examining the legality of Makwana’s transfer. The court’s direction to re-transfer the constable to Morbi followed after it found that the transfer to Kutch (East) did not satisfy the applicable requirements in the circumstances presented before it.
Senior Gujarat Officials Asked to Respond
The latest notices have been issued to Sanjeev Kumar, Principal Secretary (Home), and G.S. Malik, DGP, Gujarat. The involvement of the senior officials reflects the fact that the contempt petition concerns the implementation of a judicial direction within the state’s police and home administration.
The Bench has fixed October 15 for the authorities to respond. Their response is expected to address the allegations of non-compliance and explain what steps, if any, have been taken following the August judgment.
At this stage, the issuance of notices means that the court has sought the authorities’ response to the allegations. It does not by itself establish that contempt has been committed. The proceedings will allow the court to consider the explanation offered by the authorities before determining what further action, if any, is warranted.
Contempt Proceedings Now Centre on Re-Transfer to Morbi
The latest development puts the implementation of the August judgment at the centre of the dispute. The original transfer had been challenged on the ground that the required circumstances for an inter-district transfer had not been established, and the High Court had subsequently directed the authorities to re-transfer Makwana to Morbi.
The constable’s new petition alleges that this direction has not been followed. The State authorities will now have to respond before the High Court and place their position on record.
The case is also significant from an administrative law perspective because the earlier judgment examined the relationship between statutory provisions governing police transfers and departmental guidelines. The High Court had specifically considered the Bombay Police Act, the Gujarat Police Manual and the 2006 DGP guideline while deciding the original dispute.
For now, the next development is expected after the response from the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP is placed before the Bench. The Gujarat High Court will then consider the authorities’ explanation and determine how the contempt petition should proceed.
