Surat DCP Faces Complaint Over Mobile Phone Dispute

Surat : Deputy Police Commissioner (Zone-3) Pinakin Parmar has found himself at the center of a controversy following an incident where he allegedly threatened social activist Sanjay Ezhava with legal action for not leaving his mobile phone outside his office on Tuesday.  Ezhava has filed a formal complaint with the Surat Police commissioner, requesting legal action against DCP Parmar. 

On Tuesday, Ezhava visited DCP Parmar’s office accompanied by Sharmila Chaudhary, the wife of the kidnapped police head constable Mithun Chaudhary.  Chaudhary, who held the position of head constable in Zone-3, was abducted on August 13, 2022, and has been unaccounted for since then. 

Previously, there was an occurrence involving police personnel having Sharmila Chaudhary sign certain documents. This time, Ezhava was encouraged to join in a meeting with Deputy Police Commissioner of Zone-3, Pinakin Parmar. 

In DCP Parmar’s office, an imposing poster displayed in front of his cabin read, “Mobile phone not allowed.”  Ezhava insisted on bringing his mobile phone inside, rejecting the request to leave it outside.  Ezhava also requested the police staff to provide any notification or law regarding the requirement to leave mobile phones outside when meeting with police officers. 

Ezhava stated, “Such conduct by officials towards visitors infringes upon the basic rights of citizens.”  There are no legal restrictions against mobile phones.  Smartphones have become essential tools for individuals in today’s society.  A smartphone contains a wealth of personal documents, online media IDs, passwords, and a variety of other information.  Individuals are entitled to engage directly with representatives in any governmental facility.  No official should dismiss the concerns of citizens simply because the individual possesses a mobile phone. ” 

Even now, numerous top officials such as Pinakin Parmar require visitors to leave their mobile phones outside.  If officials are acting appropriately towards their colleagues and refraining from discussing unethical practices, what is the source of their apprehension regarding visitors?  What challenges does a mobile phone present in managing parliamentary language and addressing work-related issues and complaints from visitors in their chambers?  Are you preventing visitors with mobile phones from entering to keep the illegal money demands and corruption by officials under wraps?  While there isn’t a legal mandate for visitors to leave their mobile phones outside before entering the officials’ cabin, is it within the officials’ authority to implement such a policy?  The authorities responsible for ensuring openness in governance are overstepping their bounds by engaging in such actions.  Ezhava emphasized the importance of addressing this issue, stating that visitors should be allowed to enter the chambers of all officials with their mobile phones.

“I have not broken any laws while in the office of Deputy Police Commissioner Pinakin Parmar, nor have I hindered any government operations. However, Pinakin Parmar has misused his authority by threatening to accuse me of a crime and to imprison me.”  He has misused his authority by instilling fear and making threats towards the visitors, demonstrating a clear disregard for his responsibilities.  In this context, Ezhava stated, “I have urged the police commissioner to initiate an investigation against DCP Parmar and take the necessary legal measures.”