Over 120 Bengaluru police personnel suspended in 10 months
raising concerns over the force’s credibility
Bengaluru: Tasked with ensuring public safety and enforcing the law, the Bengaluru City Police is facing a crisis of credibility as a growing number of officers are being implicated in criminal activities. In the past ten months, 124 police personnel have reportedly been suspended for alleged involvement in offences ranging from robbery and corruption to drug peddling and dereliction of duty.
According to data shared by the police and cited by The New Indian Express on Monday, the suspended personnel include 10 inspectors, 16 sub-inspectors, 16 assistant sub-inspectors, 41 head constables, and 41 constables.
City Police Commissioner Seemanth Kumar Singh stated that strict action is being taken against officers found involved in criminal activities or showing negligence. He added that all joint commissioners and deputy commissioners of police have been instructed to hold meetings in their divisions to ensure officers are aware of departmental rules.
“Criminal activities break the discipline of the force and affect public trust. The police department is one of the largest in the state with significant manpower. If anyone fails to follow discipline, action will be initiated,” TNIE quoted him as saying.
A senior IPS officer explained that whenever police personnel are found involved in misconduct or criminal activity, a departmental enquiry (DE) is initiated.
“If they are involved in a criminal activity, an FIR is registered in addition to DE. A higher-ranked officer conducts the probe, depending on the rank of the accused officer. Based on the gravity of the offence, punishment varies, from dismissal or discharge from service to reduction of increment or compulsory leave and others,” TNIE quoted him as saying.
He added that around 90% of suspensions are due to dereliction of duty, which includes failing to follow departmental discipline. Corruption or criminal activities, he noted, often stem from poor supervision and financial pressures.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Opposition plans to move fresh notice seeking removal of CEC Gyanesh Kumar
New Delhi (PTI): Undeterred by the rejection of their earlier notices, opposition parties are planning a fresh move to seek the removal of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, sources said on Saturday.
According to highly placed sources, leaders from several opposition parties are in talks, and at least five senior MPs from different parties -- including the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the DMK -- are working on drafting a new notice to initiate removal proceedings.
It has, however, not yet been decided which House the notice would be moved in, or whether it would be introduced in both Houses as was done last time, the source added.
Buoyed by the defeat of The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 in Lok Sabha on Friday, opposition leaders are aiming to secure more MPs' signatures on the notice and are looking at garnering at least 200, the source said.
"We want to make a statement. We first need to prove that the number last time was underestimated," the source added.
In its earlier notices, the opposition had accused CEC Kumar of a "failure to maintain independence and constitutional fidelity" and of acting under the "thumb of the executive".
The notices levelled sweeping charges against the CEC, alleging “proved misbehaviour” on grounds including a compromised and executive-influenced appointment, partisan functioning -- such as the alleged “graded response” doctrine targeting opposition leaders -- obstruction of electoral fraud investigations, and erosion of transparency through refusal to share data and materials.
They further accused him of enabling large-scale disenfranchisement via Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercises in Bihar and elsewhere, defying or delaying compliance with Supreme Court directions, and acting in alignment with the political executive, thereby undermining the independence of the Election Commission.
However, in almost similar responses, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Rajya Sabha Chairman C P Radhakrishnan rejected the notices, holding that even if the allegations were assumed to be true, they did not meet the high constitutional threshold of “misbehaviour” required for removal.
They reasoned that appointment-related issues or prior government service do not constitute misconduct; differences in public statements or administrative decisions lack evidence of wilful abuse of authority; and actions like data-sharing or electoral roll revisions fall within the commission’s constitutional mandate and are subject to judicial review.
The responses also stressed that many issues cited were either speculative, politically interpretative, or sub judice, and that removal proceedings cannot be based on disagreement or perceived political consequences but require clear, specific, and provable misconduct, which, they concluded, was absent in this case.
