Maharashtra DGP transferred by Election Commission amid “phone tapping” allegations
The Election Commission removed Maharashtra’s DGP Rashmi Shukla on Monday amid allegations of bias and illegal phone tapping. This decision came after the Congress party accused Shukla of showing favoritism against opposition parties. The Commission directed the state’s chief secretary to transfer Shukla’s duties to the next senior-most IPS officer in Maharashtra. Additionally, the chief secretary must submit a panel of three IPS officers for her replacement by Tuesday afternoon.
Last month, Maharashtra Congress chief Nana Patole wrote to Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar, requesting Shukla’s removal. In his letter, Patole expressed concern over her “clear bias” against opposition parties like Congress, Shiv Sena (UBT), and NCP(SP). He cited previous letters dated September 24 and October 4, reiterating the demand for Shukla’s removal.
Patole’s accusations included illegal phone tapping of opposition leaders during Shukla’s tenure as Pune police commissioner. He emphasized that the request for her removal was repeatedly communicated through various channels, including oral representations and press conferences. He noted that while the DGP of Jharkhand was removed promptly under the Model Code of Conduct, Shukla was exempted despite similar accusations.
Furthermore, the Maharashtra Congress claimed that Shukla instructed police officers to file false cases against opposition leaders. They expressed frustration that the Commission seemed to ignore her alleged misconduct and negligence. Patole pointed out a troubling rise in political violence against opposition parties in the state over the past 20 days. He argued that this deterioration in law and order coincided with Shukla’s continued position as DGP.
In summary, the removal of DGP Rashmi Shukla follows serious allegations of bias and misconduct, reflecting heightened tensions as Maharashtra approaches elections. The Congress party’s persistent efforts to highlight these issues appear to have influenced the Election Commission’s decision to act.
