MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

SC : Reputation of an Individual is an Insegregable Facet of his Right to Life with Dignity

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                  CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6637-6638 of 2018

         S. Nambi Narayanan                                           …Appellant(s)

                                                  VERSUS



         Siby Mathews & Others Etc.                                   …Respondent(s)


                                              JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, CJI

The appellant, a septuagenarian, a former Scientist of a Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), has assailed a visualisation and sequence inspected by a Division Bench of a High Court of Kerala whereby it has overturned a preference of a schooled singular Judge who had lancinated a sequence of a State Government disappearing to take suitable movement opposite a military officers on a drift of check and serve remitted a matter to a Government. To contend a least, a description by a Division Bench is too simplistic.

2. The exposé of extend unequivocally succinctly put is that on 20.01.1994,  Crime No.225/94 was purebred during Vanchiyoor Police Station against one Mariam Rasheeda, a Maldivian National, under Section 14 of a Foreigners Act, 1946 and divide 7 of a Foreigners Order. The review of a box was conducted by one S. Vijayan, a respondent no. 6 herein, who was a afterwards Inspector, Special Branch, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Mariam Rasheeda was arrested and sent to authorised control on 21.10.1994. Her control was achieved by a Police on 03.11.1994 and she was interrogated by Kerala Police and Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials. Allegedly, during interrogation, she done certain ‘confessions’ that led to a registration of Crime No. 246/1994, Vanchiyoor Police Station on 13.11.1994 under Sections 3 and 4 of a Indian Official Secrets Acts, 1923, alleging that certain central secrets and papers of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) had been leaked out by scientists of ISRO.

4. Another Maldivian National Fousiya Hasan along with Mariam Rasheeda was arrested in Crime No. 246/1994. On 15.11.1994, review of both a cases was taken over by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by one Mr. Siby Mathews, respondent no. 1 herein, who was a afterwards D.I.G. Crime of Kerala Police. On 21.11.1994, Sri D. Sasikumaran, a scientist during ISRO, was arrested and on 30.11.1994, S. Nambi Narayanan, a appellant herein, was arrested along with dual other persons. Later, on 04.12.1994, accompanying to a ask of a Government of Kerala and a preference of a Government of India, a review was eliminated to a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), a respondent no. 4 herein.

5. After a investigation, a CBI submitted a news before a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. saying that a justification collected indicated that a allegations of espionage opposite a scientists during ISRO, including a appellant herein, were not valid and were found to be false. This news was supposed vide court’s sequence antiquated 02.05.1996 and all a indicted were discharged.

6. That apart, in a pronounced report, addressed to a Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, a CBI, a respondent no. 4 herein, had unequivocally mentioned:-

“Notwithstanding a rejection of a indicted persons of their complicity, meticulous, means and perfected investigations were launched by a CBI and any bit of information allegedly given by a indicted in their progressing matter to Kerala Police/IB about a places of meetings for functions of espionage activities, a probability of flitting on a drawing/documents of several technologies, receipt of income as a care thereof etc., were left into, nonetheless zero of a information could be substantiated.”

7. The CBI in a report, as regards a purpose of a respondent no.1 herein, went on to state:-

“I, Sh. Siby Mathew was streamer a Special Investigation Team and was, therefore, entirely obliged for a control of review in a aforesaid dual cases. Investigation conducted by a CBI has suggested that he did not take adequate stairs possibly in courtesy to a consummate interrogations of a indicted persons by Kerala Police or a corroboration of a so called avowal done by a indicted persons. In fact, he left a whole review to IB surrendering his duties. He systematic unenlightened detain of a ISRO scientist and others nonetheless adequate justification being on record. It stressed that conjunction Sh. Siby Mathew and his group recovered any damning ISRO papers from a indicted persons nor any monies supposed to have been paid to a indicted persons by their unfamiliar masters. It was unsuited on his partial to have systematic unenlightened detain to tip ISRO scientists who played a pivotal purpose in successful rising of satellite in a space and thereby caused avoidable mental and earthy agonise to them. It is startling that he did not take any stairs during his possess turn to control review on a points suggested by him. Since Sh. Mathew was formed during Trivandrum, there was no justification for not carrying a searches conducted in a officials’ residential premises of a indicted Nambi Narayanan was arrested by a Kerala Police on 30.11.1994.

Vi. Shri Siby Mathew and his group miserably unsuccessful even in conducting corroboration of a annals of Hotels viz., Hotel foret Manor, Hotel Pankaj, Hotel Luciya, etc., that were located during Trivandrum to discern a sincerity of a matter of indicted persons….

The above extend are being brought to a notice of a efficient government for their kind care and for such movement as deemed fit.

[Emphasis added]

8. On 27.06.1996, a State Government of Kerala, being discontented with a CBI report, expelled a presentation withdrawing a progressing presentation expelled to entrust a matter to CBI and motionless to control re-investigation of a box by a State Police. This presentation for re-investigation was challenged by a appellant herein, before a High Court of Kerala, in O.P. No. 14248/1996-U nonetheless a presentation was inspected by a High Court of Kerala vide sequence antiquated 27.11.1996.

9. Aggrieved by a aforesaid sequence of a Kerala High Court, a appellant herein, changed this Court by filing a special leave petition. This Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and others 1 quashed a presentation of a State of Kerala for re-investigation holding that a pronounced presentation was opposite good governance and consequently, all indicted were liberated of charges. The observations of this Court review thus:-

“Even if we were to reason that State Government had a explain energy and government to emanate a impugned notification, still a same would be probable to be quashed on a belligerent of malafide practice of power. Eloquent reason thereof is furnished by a following extend and resources as appearing on a record….” [Emphasis added]

10. Even after grouping of a box by this Court, a State of Kerala did not take any movement opposite a imperfect military officers. In a year 1 (1998) 5 SCC 223 2001, a National Human Rights Commission systematic a remuneration of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees 10 lakhs only) as halt use to a appellant, who had sought Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) as damages. A multiplication dais of a Kerala High Court, vide sequence antiquated 07.09.2012, asked a Government to recompense a halt use of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees 10 lakhs only) within 3 weeks of a pronounced order.

11. Thereafter, one Rajasekharan Nair filed a command petition, being W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010, before a Kerala High Court on a basement of a news filed by a CBI seeking directions for a State of Kerala to pass suitable orders and take compulsory movement opposite a imperfect military officers for conducting a antagonistic investigation. In a meantime, a Government, by sequence antiquated 29.06.2011, motionless not to take any disciplinary movement opposite a members of a SIT (erring military officers). The applicable apportionment of a sequence of a State of Kerala antiquated 29.06.2011 reads as follows:-

“5) Both a CBI and a accused-discharged persons approached a Hon’ble High Court opposite a movement of Government of Kerala. However, a High Court inspected a movement of a Government. Against this a CBI and a indicted – liberated persons approached a Supreme Court by SLPs opposite a movement of Government of Kerala.

6) In a meantime Government examined a box with stress to a views achieved form a State Police Chief on a courtesy of a CBI along with a reason of a officers concerned. After hearing it was motionless to await a preference of a Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court authorised a ask of a CBI and a indicted liberated persons doubt a presentation expelled by a Government withdrawing a agree given to a CBI to examine into a espionage box and also to “further investigate” a ISRO espionage box and also destined to give Rs. 1 Lakh any to a indicted appellants as cost.

7) Government examined a matter with stress to a whole annals of a box and in correct focus of mind. It has been found that conjunction a Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court who supposed a Final Report nor a Hon’ble Supreme Court had expelled any instruction to take movement opposite a questioning officers viz :- Shri S. Vijayan, a afterwards Inspector, Special Branch, Thiruvananthapuram City, Shri K.K. Joshwa, a afterwards Dy. SP, CB CID, Thiruvananthapuram, Shri Siby Methews, a afterwards DIG (Crimes) of a Special Investigation Team who investigated in to a ISRO Espionage case.

8) In a circumstances, Government are of a viewpoint that it is not correct or authorised to take disciplinary movement opposite a officials for a supposed lapses forked out in a review news of a CBI during this juncture, after a relapse of 15 years and therefore Government confirm that no disciplinary movement need be taken opposite a above officials for their supposed lapses in a review of a ISRO Espionage box and it is systematic accordingly.”

12. W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010 was expected of by a High Court carrying been rendered infructuous as a postulant therein, Rajesekharan Nair, wanted to haven his right to defence a sequence expelled by a Government. Despite unassailable difficulties, a unassailable idea of a appellant impelled him to record another command petition, W.P. (C) No. 30918 of 2012, before a Kerala High Court. The schooled Judge of a High Court of Kerala, deliberation a pleadings of the parties and afterward elaborately deliberation a matter, authorised a command petition and quashed a sequence antiquated 29.06.2011 inspected by a State of Kerala whereby a Kerala Government had motionless not to take any disciplinary movement opposite a members of a SIT (erring military officers) and hence remitted a matter to a State of Kerala, a respondent no. 2 herein, for reconsideration and flitting serve orders within 3 months. Though a schooled singular Judge left it open to a State of Kerala to confirm on a march of movement to be taken in a matter, nonetheless it was unequivocally mentioned that a reconsideration of a matter should not usually be a namesake that will make a administration of probity a mockery.

13. Though a pronounced preference of a schooled singular Judge was not challenged by a State of Kerala, nonetheless dual private persons, being a respondent nos. 1 and 5 herein, assailed a visualisation before a Division Bench in WA Nos. 1863 and 1959 of 2014. The Division Bench of a High Court, vide impugned visualisation and sequence antiquated 04.03.2015, celebrated that a usually doubt before a Government was possibly any disciplinary movement was to be instituted opposite a officers who were members of a SIT that conducted review for some days and afterward reported that a matter compulsory to be investigated by a CBI. The Division Bench opined that a poignant anticipating or report submitted by a CBI on 03.06.1996 in a matter could usually be treated as an opinion voiced by a CBI that competence be deliberate by a Government. Further, a Division Bench left it to a Government to cruise or not to cruise a opinion voiced by a CBI in a aforesaid news for a purpose of holding disciplinary action.

14. The Division Bench also reason that a Kerala Government’s preference of not holding movement opposite a imperfect military officers of a SIT was formed on 3 specific findings, namely (i) a Government’s hearing of a box with stress to a views achieved from a State Police Chief with honour to a observations of a CBI alongwith a reason of a imperfect military officers concerned, (ii) a deficiency of any instruction by a Chief Judicial Magistrate who had supposed a final report, and (iii) deficiency of any instruction from a Supreme Court to take movement opposite a questioning officers. That apart, a Government opined that it is not correct or authorised to take disciplinary movement opposite a officers on a basement of CBI news after a relapse of fifteen years.

15. Be it noted, a Division Bench resolved by watching thus:

“Therefore a 3 reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 clearly prove that a Government has examined a applicable matters for nearing during a pronounced decision. When a preference has been taken not to ensue serve with any disciplinary action, after deliberation such applicable matters, a preference can't be deliberate as unreasonable, astray or arbitrary.” And again:-

“In fact, possibly a indicted were tortured or not is a doubtful doubt of fact. Further no such censure was lifted by a accused. When a fact being so and given a postulant carrying already approached a National Human Rights Commission and a Civil Court, it is for a pronounced agencies to arrive during a correct anticipating per such doubtful facts.” The pronounced sequence is a theme matter of asperse before this Court in these appeals.

16. It is urged by a appellant that a charge launched opposite him by a Kerala military was antagonistic on comment of dual reasons, a initial being that a pronounced charge had a inauspicious outcome on his use career as a heading and eminent scientist during ISRO thereby smothering his career, life span, savings, honour, educational work as good as egoism and hence ensuing in sum extinction of a assent of his whole family that is an ineffaceable sold loss, and a second, a lost and irretrievable detriment and reversal caused to a technological enrichment in Space Research in India.

17. It has also been contended that a CBI, to whom a review of a box opposite a appellant was transferred, after a consummate review for about eighteen months, filed a extensive and downright news wherein it had endorsed that a box opposite the appellant be sealed as a allegations opposite a appellant are totally unsubstantiated.

See also  What is basic concept of suitable accommodation in rent Act?

18. The appellant has also drawn a courtesy of this Court to a fact that a CBI in a pronounced news had also highlighted several omissions and commissions on a partial of a Kerala Police Officers while questioning a box opposite a appellant. That apart, a CBI, in a news submitted to a Kerala Government, had endorsed that movement be taken opposite a imperfect military officers for critical lapses in a liberate of their duties. The appellant has, in his submissions, voiced his agonise over a fact that a State Government, instead of behaving on a recommendations done by a CBI and holding suitable movement opposite a imperfect military officers, focused a whole courtesy on holding serve movement on a review opposite a appellant and hastened to consecrate a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by a presentation that was challenged before a High Court.

19. The appellant has serve highlighted that this Court had progressing opined about a antagonistic charge launched opposite him. Reliance has been placed on a critique modernized by a NHRC opposite a State Government. Learned comparison warn has urged with agonise that a High Court has depressed into grave blunder by nutritious a sequence of a Government and remaining preoccupied to a predicament of a appellant. It is his serve acquiescence that a appellant should be postulated remuneration by holding chance to a component of inherent tort and a cabinet be constituted to take suitable movement opposite a officers who had played with a life and autocracy of a male of good reputation.

20. Learned warn for a respondent no. 1 has submitted that a row of a appellant that if he had not been secretly implicated, he would have done a outrageous disproportion in a cryogenic record and thereby contributed immensely to a Nation is illogical as it is an certified fact that he had submitted his VRS on 01.11.1994 immediately after a detain of Mariam Rasheeda, and on a unequivocally same day, his abdication was supposed by a Superior Officer. It is forked out that a explain of poignant extend to a Nation is being put onward by appellant usually to benefit a magnetism of a Court.

21. It is serve canvassed that a whole review of a box opposite a appellant was carried out underneath tighten organization of a afterwards Director General of Police (Intelligence) & Director General of Police (Law and Order) and daily reports were sent to them during a march of a investigation. It has also been highlighted that on a day of detain of a appellant, a respondent no. 1 had submitted a news to a DGP requesting entrusting of a matter to a CBI that is a transparent indication of a fact that there was no mala fide on a partial of a pronounced respondent no. 1 and other officials of a Kerala Police. The respondent no. 1 has contended that a whole progression of extend reveals that he and other officials had achieved their duties with full shortcoming and a justification on record and a statements of other indicted had clearly shown a impasse of a indicted persons in a activities of espionage.

22. The respondent no. 1, in sequence to justify his explain that a appellant and a other indicted persons were never subjected to any woe by a respondent no. 1 or other military officers, seeks to pull a courtesy of a Court to a commentary of a Division Bench of a High Court that had dealt with a command petition filed when a review was tentative before a CBI. It is put onward on interest of a respondent no. 1 that he himself did not take any stairs for consummate inquire of a indicted and sent a same to a CBI and, hence, a justification that he was tortured by a State military was distant from a truth. As per a presentation antiquated 20.01.1987 expelled by a Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, a Central Government conferred a powers of Superintendent of Police on officers of a arrange of Assistant Director of a Intelligence Bureau and in a benefaction case, a IB had come into the picture prolonged before a structure of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) by a State Government.

23. It is highlighted by a respondent no. 1 that there was sufficient justification indicating a impasse of a appellant and it had also come to a notice of a respondent no. 1 that a appellant, who had submitted his VRS, was intending to leave a nation and in a light of a pronounced facts, a detain of a appellant and other indicted persons had turn necessary. Learned warn would contend that a mount of a CBI that no damning annals had been recovered is unsuitable inasmuch as a final news reveals that 235 papers were recovered from a chateau of a indicted persons and a reason for a same was an emanate that compulsory investigation.

24. Further, it is contended that a box had been investigated by a respondent no. 1 usually for 17 days and thereafter, it was a CBI that carried out a review and, hence, a shortcoming to apprise a media fell on a CBI and not on a respondent no. 1. Various other aspects have been controverted to uncover a non-involvement of a pronounced respondent and a bona fide act on his partial to send a box to a CBI. To make allegations opposite a SIT after send of a box to a CBI is unwarranted.

25. Learned warn for a respondent no. 1 submits that a whole bearing of a justification of a appellant that he was subjected to woe falls to a belligerent as a IB officials opposite whom a vital charges of woe had been leveled had not been done accountable for a pronounced movement and, therefore, it would be discriminatory to reason a respondent no. 1 and other military officers of Kerala accountable for a supposed torture. That apart, it is urged that a schooled singular Judge of a High Court had usually remanded a matter to a State Government for uninformed care and had not given any anticipating on a claim of woe and a respondent no. 1 had also contended that a appellant never lifted any allegations of woe before a CJM Court. Further, it is argued that a appellant was in control of Kerala military usually for 5 days, while a CBI had taken remand of a indicted on 3 occasions and had kept in control for forty 5 days.

26. On interest of a CBI, a fourth respondent, it is submitted that inspite of highlighting several lapses and faults on a partial of a military officials while carrying out review opposite a appellant and other indicted persons, a Kerala Government has unsuccessful to take any movement opposite a imperfect officials. It has been submitted that a reasons given by a Kerala Government for not initiating any movement opposite a imperfect military officers, who had not usually inflicted evil custodial woe to the scientists of ISRO nonetheless also arrested them while they were operative on a essential space programme, was an unpardonable lapse. It is forked out that if a movement of a Government of Kerala is not interfered with on a belligerent of delay, it would tantamount to holding advantage of one’s possess wrong doing and serve adding a reward to an unpardonable fault.

27. Learned warn for a respondent no. 4 has submitted that a control of a military officials is rapist in inlet as per a review and news submitted by a CBI and a review of a CBI had clearly determined that a review carried out by a State military was full of lapses and also endangered practice of bootleg means such as rapist torture. The mount of a respondents is that a news is complimentary nonetheless it was obligatory on a State of Kerala to act on a same as that would have reflected an apposite facet of inherent governance and honour for sold autocracy and dignity. Relying on a visualisation of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty2, it is submitted that a State of Kerala could not take preserve of a doctrine of check and laches. The imperfect control of a military officers is of rapist inlet and probity can be meted out to a appellant usually by holding suitable movement opposite a pronounced officers along with remuneration of remuneration for a chagrin and flaw suffered by a victim.

2 (2007) 7 SCC 394

28. It is serve contended by a schooled warn for a respondent no. 4 that review can be instituted to teach certainty in a open mind. To strut his stand, a preference in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab and others 3 has been pulpy into service.

29. First, we shall advert to a aspect of extend of compensation. From a research above, we are of a viewpoint that a appellant was arrested and he has suffered control for roughly fifty days. His detain has been severely criticized in a closure news of a CBI. The comments contained in a news review as follows:-

“2. Consequent on a ask of Govt. of Kerala, a review of Crime No 225/95 and No. 246/94 was entrusted to a .CHI for review vide DP&T Notification No. 228/59/94-AVD.II (i) & (ii) antiquated 2/12/94. Accordingly, box RC. 10(S) 94 lis. 14 of Foreigners Act and Para 7 of Foreigners Act, 1948 (corresponding to Crime No. 225/95) and box RC 11 (S)/94 U/s. I20-B r/w See. 3, 4 & 5 of official Secrets Act r/w Sec. 34 IPC (corresponding to Crime No. 246/94). were purebred on 3/12/94 in SIU. V Branch of CBl/SIC.II/New Delhi.

3. Immediately after a registration of a case, a review was taken on 4/12/94 and a military box files of both a cases were taken over. After investigation, a Chargesheet in Case Crime no. 225.94 was filed on 17/12/94 opposite Mariam Fasheeda. This box has finished in exculpation of indicted Mariyam Rasheeda vide Judgment antiquated 14.11.1995, inspected by a Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cochin.

3 (1994) 1 SCC 616

4. The internal military during a march of review of box crime No. 225/94 had seized a Diary created in Dwivegi book from indicted Mariyam Rasheeda, a essence of that indicated that she was collecting informations about certain Maldivian nationals formed in Bangalore who were allegedly formulation a manoeuvre opposite a Govt. of Maldives. It was serve suggested that indicted Mariyam Rasheeda along with Fauziya Hassan had stayed in Room No. 205 of Hotel Smart, Trivandrum from 17/9/94 to 20/10/94 and during this duration a series of write calls were found to have been done from Room No. 205 to Tel. No. of D. Sasikumaran, a comparison Scientist of Indian Space Research Organisation, Valiamala. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda while in Kerala Police control in this box was interrogated by Kerala Police and officials of Intelligence Bureau. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda allegedly done a matter divulgence a contacts of Fauziya Hassan and of one Zuheira, a Maldivian inhabitant staid in Colombo with Mohiyuddin state to be Pakistani inhabitant operative as Assistant Manager, Habib Bank in Male and Mazhar Khan, another Pak National. She also allegedly disclosed that according to Fauziya Hassan, D. Sasikumaran was crony of Zuheria. Based on a disclosures allegedly done by indicted Mariyam Rasheeda joined with a essence of her diary and a write contacts with D.

See also  Leading judgment on extra judicial confession

Sasikumaran, a benefaction box was purebred on a guess that she and Fauziya Hassan along with others were holding partial in activities unjust to a government and firmness of India.

5. The review of crime No. 246/94 remained with Special Branch usually for dual days and on 15.11.94, a review was taken over by Special Investigation was taken over by Special Investigation Team headed by Shri Siby Mathews, DIG (Crime), Trivandrum. During a march of investigation, a Kerala Police/Crime bend arrested 6 indicted persons on a dates as shown below:-

     i.     Fauziya Hassan - 13.11:94
     ii.    Mariyam Fasheeda-       14.11.94
     iii.   D. Sasikumaran -        21.11.94



          iv.   K. Chandrasekhar -  23.11.94
          v.    Nambi Narayanan -   30.11.94
          vi.   Sudhir Kumar Sharma - 01.12.94

5. The hunt of a bureau room as good as chateau of D. Sasikumaran during Space Application Centre, Ahemedabad, was conducted on 21.11.94 and that of his bureau and chateau during Trivandrum on 30.11.94. The hunt of bureau as good as chateau of indicted Chandrasekhar and S.K. Sharma, were conducted on 21.11.94 during Bangalore. The chateau hunt of Ms Sara Palani of Bangalore where indicted Fauziya Hassan was residing, was also conducted on 21.11.94. In addition, a chateau seach of Shri. M.K. Govinadan Nair and Shri Mohana Prasad, both comparison Scientists of LPSC Valiamala, was also conducted nonetheless zero damning was recovered. The Crime Branch also exdamined 27 witnesses nonetheless zero of a witnesses staid anything that could chuck any light about a supposed espionage activities of a indicted persons. The 7 witnesses of Hotel Samrat, Tridandrum, valid a stay of indicted Mariyam Rahseeda and Fauziya Hassan in Room No. 205 in Hotel Samrat from 19.9.94 to 20.10.94 and a revisit of Sasikumaran to Hotel Samarat to accommodate Mariyam Rasheeda. The witnesses of Hotel Geeth, Trivandrum and that of Hotel Rock Holm, Trivandrum, valid a revisit of indicted Sasikumaran alongwith Mariyam Rasheeda to a pronounced hotel on 10.10.94 and witjiMariyam Rasheeda to a pronounced hotel on 10.10.94 and 28.9.94, respectively.” And again:-

“10. Though no eccentric justification has come on record during a march of internal Police/Crime bend review about a supposed espionage activities of a indicted persons, nonetheless formed on a revelations allegedly done by a accused, a procession that emerged per a espionage activities was that indicted Nambi Narayanan and Sasikumaran used to pass on papers drawings of ISRO relating to Viking/Vikas Engine technology, Cryogenic Engine record and PSLV Flight Data/Drawings and indicted Chandersekhar, S.K.

Sharma and Raman Srivastava, a afterwards IGP South Zone, Kerala inspected on secrets of Aeronautical Defence Establishments, Bangalore. The documents/drawings were allegedly inspected on to Mohd. Aslam, a Pak chief scientist and Mohd. Pasha/ahmed Pasha for monetory considerations and that a volume using into lacs of US dollars was perceived andshared by indicted Sasikumaran, Chandrasekhar, Nambi Narayanan and Shri Raman Srivastava and that Mohiyuddin, Asstt. Manager of Habib Bank, Male, was one of a persons who was financing a accused. Accused Fauziya Hassan, zuheria, a Maldivian inhabitant staid in Colomobo, Mr. Alexi Vassive of Glovkosmos, Russia, and Shri Raman srivastava, worked as conduits. Some of a critical meetings that were reason for espionage activities and in that a papers were allegedly inspected on for a consideration, were reason during International Hotel Madras on 24.5.1994, m Bangalore in a midst Sep and on 23.9.94 during Hotel Luciya, Trivandrum, in that some of a indicted as good as pronounced Zuheira and Shri Raman Srivastava, IGP, took part.

11. Immediately after holding over a review , by CBI, all a 6 indicted persons are entirely interrogated, holding a statements supposed to have been done by a indicted before a Kerala Police/IB, to be true, nonetheless all of them denied carrying indulged in any espionage activity. On being confronted with a statements done by them before Kerala Police as good as IB officials, a indicted took a defence that a statements were done on a suggested lines underneath duress. Though there was no censure possibly from ISRO or fromDE Bangalore about a detriment of any documents, a supposed revelations of a indicted done before internal Police/Intelligence officials were taken during their face value and focused review was carried out to find out a sum and functions of several visits of indicted Mariyam Rasheeda and Fauziya Hassan to India, their places of stay were verified, a persons, including accused,, with whom they came in hit were examined and efforts are done to accumulate verbal as good as documentary justification to find out possibly a indicted have committed any acts that were unjust to a sovereignty, firmness and confidence of a State and violative of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 x x x x x “Accused Nambi Narayanan jointed Thumba Equotarial Launching System on 12.9.1996 as Technical Assistant (Design) and afterwards from time to time he was promoted and was operative as Scientist-II given Jan 93. In complement Project, Associates Project Director GSLV and Project Director PS-II and PS-LV and was obliged for a classification and government of launch car complement projects in LPSC.

x x x x x

32. During a review conjunction any justification came on record indicating that a indicted indulged in espionage activities by ensue of flitting on of tip papers of ISRO of any Defence establishments nor any damning papers could be recovered. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda has taken a mount that she was to lapse to Male on 29.9.94 nonetheless could strech Trivandrum Airport as she did not get any ride on comment of a ‘bandh’. Subsequently, a Indian Airlines (lights were dangling on comment of disease shock and thus, she could not go. Since she was going to finish stay of 90 days on 14.10.94, and to capacitate her to stay over 90 days she compulsory a accede of a military authorities, she alongwith Fauziya Hassan visited bureau of a Commissioner of Police and contacted Inspector Vijayan. She was suggested by Inspector Vijayan to initial obtain a reliable sheet for her lapse and afterwards to ensue for a prolongation of her stay. Accordingly, she got one Indian Airlines sheet and one Air Lanka sheet reliable for her depart of 17.10.94 and approached Inspector Vijayan. However, Inspector vijayan took sheet as good as her Passport and eventually she was arrested on 20.10.94.

x x x x

38. As per a matter of indicted Nambi Narayanan allegedly done before Kerala Police, a understanding for sale Viking/Vikas Engine drawings was struck with Habibullah Khan for Rs. 1.5 crores. Two installments of a drawings were given to Rauziya during Thampanoor ‘Bus Stand and Luciya Hotel and a third installment was scheduled to be given on 5,12.94. Another understanding for send for Rocket Launch sum of LPSC was finalized with Fauziya Hassan and Ahemd Pash during hotel Fort Manor during February, 1993 for a care of USS 1.00 lakh and that on 11.10.94 he and Sasikumaran took Fauziya from Hotel Samrat to a circuitously dam and intent in send of packets containing Cryogenic technology.

The review revealed:-

(xiv) Investigation has determined that a indicted persons including Rasheeda, Nambi Narayanan and Chandrasekhar were tormented and physically abused. It is extraordinary that while a IB had all a 6 indicted persons in their custody, they accessible a statements of usually Sasikumaran, Chandrashekar, Fauziya and Rasheeda and not of Nambi Narayanan and S.K.. Shanna. There is reason to trust that a interrogators forced a indicted persons to make statements on suggested lines. The CBI seized a personal diary of Chandrasekhar on 9.12.94. that contained a sum of his activities roughly on day to day basis. If Chandrasekhar had done guileless disclosures to a Kerala Police/IB interrogators, positively they would have also detected a existence of his diary that did not support box opposite him. He done disclosures before a CBI per a existence of his diary that on research corroborates his chronicle per his movements ex. Bangalore.

(xv) On a ask of CBI, Director, LPSC had constituted a Committee of experts of establish possibly any papers were found to be missing. The Committee gave a news to contend that usually 254 papers were found to be blank that were pointless in inlet and did not associate to a sold complement or underling system. The Committee also remarkable that Vikas Engine was expelled on a basement of a in-house drawings that were prepared after modifying a SEP drawings and all a in-house drawings were accessible and there was expected to be no impact of some tiny series of blank documents. Similarly, all a 16.800 sheets in a Fabrication Divn. where Sasikumaran was operative were found to be intact.

(xvi) Neither any damning papers of any money- Indian or unfamiliar have been recovered form a indicted persons during searches conducted by a Kerala Police and after by a CBI. The inspection of bank accounts also do not prove anything questionable in this regard.

(xvii) It is reasonable to trust that if Rasheeda was endangered in any espionage activity per ISRO, she should have done a discuss thereof in her diary that is not a case.

114. During march of investigation, certain lapses were found on a partial of progressing investigations/interrogators. The news is being submitted that Government of Kerala/Govt. of India, alone on these aspects.

115. So sum up, in viewpoint of a justification on record, verbal as good as documentary, as discussed above, a allegations of espionage are not valid and have been found to be false. It is, therefore, prayed that a news competence pleasantly be supposed and a indicted liberated and accede be accorded to lapse a seized papers to a concerned.” From a aforesaid report, a nuisance and mental woe faced by a appellant is obvious.

30. The news submitted by a CBI has been supposed by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra). Dealing with a end of a report, this Court stated:-

“(iii) Though a review of a box centered turn espionage activities in ISRO no censure was done by it to that outcome nor did it lift any protest on that score. On a contrary, from a military news submitted by a CBI we find that several scientists of this organization were examined and from a statements done by those officers a CBI drew a following conclusion:

“The sum and piece of a aforesaid statements is that ISRO does not have a complement of classifying drawings/documents. In other words, a documents/drawings are not remarkable as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Classified etc. Further, ISRO follows an open-door process in courtesy to a emanate of papers to a scientists. Since ISRO is a research-oriented organisation, any scientist wanting to examine any request is giveaway to go to a Documentation Cell/Library and examine a documents. As regards a emanate of papers to several Divisions, a procession was that usually a copies used to be expelled to a several groups on score after duly entering a same in a Documentation Issue Registers. During investigation, it has been suggested that several drawings using into 16,800 sheets were expelled to a Fabrication Division where indicted Sasi Kumaran was working, and after his send to SAP, Ahmedabad on 7-11-1994, all a copies of a drawings were found to be intact. Nambi Narayanan being a comparison scientist, nonetheless had entrance to a drawings, nonetheless during no theatre any drawings/documents were found to have been expelled to him. They have also staid that it was common for scientists to take a documents/drawings compulsory for any meetings/discussions to their houses for examine purposes. In these circumstances, a claim that Nambi Narayanan and Sasi Kumaran competence have inspected on a papers to a third party, is found to be false.” It serve appears that during a instance of CBI, a Committee of comparison scientists was constituted to discern possibly any personal papers of a organization were stolen or found blank and their news shows that there were no such blank documents. There cannot, therefore, be any range for serve review in honour of supposed espionage activities in that organization in honour of that usually a Kerala Police would have office to investigate;

See also  Precaution to be taken by court while granting permanent injunction in partition suit

31. As staid earlier, a whole charge instituted by a State military was antagonistic and it has caused extensive nuisance and infinite agonise to a appellant. It is not a box where a indicted is kept underneath control and, eventually, after trial, he is found not guilty. The State military was traffic with an intensely supportive box and after impediment a appellant and some others, a State, on a own, eliminated a box to a Central Bureau of Investigation. After extensive enquiry, a closure news was filed. An justification has been modernized by a schooled warn for a State of Kerala as good as by a other respondents that a error should be found with a CBI nonetheless not with a State police, for it had eliminated a box to a CBI. The pronounced acquiescence is to be remarkable usually to be rejected. The rapist law was set in fit nonetheless any basis. It was initiated, if one is authorised to say, on some kind of imagination or notion. The autocracy and grace of a appellant that are simple to his tellurian rights were jeopardized as he was taken into control and, eventually, notwithstanding all a excellence of a past, he was compelled to face asocial abhorrence. This conditions invites a open law pill for extend of remuneration for defilement of a elemental right envisaged under Article 21 of a Constitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy. It is since life commands egoism and dignity.

32. There has been some justification that there has been no censure with courtesy to custodial torture. When such an justification is advanced, a visualisation of woe is noticed from a slight perspective. What unequivocally matters is what has been staid in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. 4. The Court in a pronounced case, while traffic with a aspect of torture, held:-

“10. ‘Torture’ has not been tangible in a Constitution or in other penal laws. ‘Torture’ of a tellurian being by another tellurian being is radically an instrument to levy a will of a ‘strong’ over a ‘weak’ by suffering. The word woe currently has turn synonymous with a darker side of tellurian civilisation.

‘Torture is a wound in a essence so unpleasant that infrequently we can roughly hold it, nonetheless it is also so unsubstantial that there is no ensue to reanimate it. Torture is agonise squeezing in your chest, cold as ice and complicated as a stone, paralysing as nap and dim as a abyss. Torture is despondency and fear and fury and hate. It is a enterprise to kill and destroy including yourself.’ — Adriana P. Bartow

11. No defilement of any one of a tellurian rights has been a theme of so many conventions and declarations as ‘torture’ — all aiming during sum banning of it in all forms, nonetheless in annoy of a commitments done to discharge torture, a fact stays that woe is some-more widespread now than ever before. ‘Custodial torture’ is a exposed defilement of tellurian grace and plunge that destroys, to a unequivocally vast extent, a sold personality. It is a distributed attack on tellurian grace and whenever tellurian grace is wounded, civilisation takes a step back — dwindle of amiability contingency on any such arise fly half-mast.

4 (1997) 1 SCC 416

12. In all custodial crimes what is of genuine regard is not usually detriment of physique pain nonetheless a mental agonise that a chairman undergoes within a 4 walls of military hire or lock-up. Whether it is earthy attack or rape in military custody, a border of trauma, a chairman practice is over a reach of law.”

33. From a aforesaid, it is utterly clear that importance has been laid on mental agonise when a chairman is cramped within a 4 walls of a military hire or close up. There competence not be detriment of earthy pain nonetheless unequivocally there is mental torment. In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, a Court ruled:-

“8. The setting of tellurian rights is expanding. At a same time, a crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been receiving complaints about defilement of tellurian rights since of unenlightened arrests. How are we to strike a change between a two?

9. A picturesque ensue should be done in this direction. The law of detain is one of balancing sold rights, liberties and privileges, on a one hand, and sold duties, obligations and responsibilities on a other; of weighing and balancing a rights, liberties and privileges of a singular sold and those of people collectively; of simply determining what is wanted and where to put a weight and a emphasis; of determining that comes initial — a rapist or society, a law delinquent or a law abider….”

34. In Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and another 6, this Court reproduced an courtesy from a preference in D.F. Marion v. Davis7:- 5 (1994) 4 SCC 260 6 (1989) 1 SCC 494 7 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927) “25. … ‘The right to a delight of a private reputation, unassailed by antagonistic slander is of ancient origin, and is compulsory to tellurian society. A good repute is an component of personal security, and is stable by a Constitution equally with a right to a delight of life, liberty, and property.’”

35. Reputation of an sold is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity. In a opposite context, a dual Judge Bench of this Court in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal8 has observed:-

“55. … repute that is not usually a salt of life, nonetheless also a purest value and a many changed redolence of life. It is intensely ethereal and a loving value this side of a grave. It is a income generator for a benefaction as good as for a posterity.”

36. From a aforesaid analysis, it can be staid with confidence that a elemental right of a appellant under Article 21 has been sincerely affected. In this context, we competence impute with distinction how this Court had cursed a extreme use of force by a police. In Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and others 9, it said:-

“39. The categorical design of military is to detain offenders, to examine crimes and to prosecute them before a courts and also to forestall elect of crime and above all to safeguard law and sequence to strengthen a citizens’ life and property. The law enjoins a military to be conscientiously satisfactory to a delinquent and a Magistracy is to safeguard satisfactory review and satisfactory hearing to an offender.

The purpose and intent of Magistracy and military are interrelated to any other. It is hapless that these objectives have remained emptied even after 40 years of a Constitution. Aberrations of military 8 (2012) 7 SCC 288 9 (1991) 4 SCC 406 officers and military excesses in traffic with a law and sequence conditions have been theme of inauspicious comments from this Court as good as from other courts nonetheless it has unsuccessful to have any visual outcome on it. The military has energy to detain a chairman even nonetheless receiving a aver of detain from a court. The width of this energy casts an requirement on a military … [and it] contingency bear in mind, as reason by this Court that if a chairman is arrested for a crime, his inherent and elemental rights contingency not be violated.”

37. If a receiving poignant pattern is adjudged on a aforesaid beliefs and parameters, there can be no scintilla of doubt that a appellant, a successful scientist carrying inhabitant reputation, has been compelled to bear measureless humiliation. The good-for-nothing opinion of a State military to detain anyone and put him in military control has done a appellant to humour a ignominy. The grace of a chairman gets repelled when psycho-pathological diagnosis is meted out to him. A tellurian being cries for probity when he feels that a inanimate act has crucified his self-respect. That warrants extend of remuneration underneath a open law remedy. We are positively unwavering that a polite fit has been filed for extend of compensation. That will not hinder a inherent probity to extend remuneration holding chance to open law. The Court can't remove steer of a prejudicial imprisonment, antagonistic prosecution, a chagrin and a insult faced by a appellant. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others 10, a three-Judge Bench, after referring to a progressing decisions, has opined:-

“38. It is so now good staid that a endowment of remuneration opposite a State is an suitable and effective pill for calibrate of an determined transgression of a elemental right under Article 21, by a open servant. The quantum of remuneration will, however, count on a extend and resources of any case. Award of such remuneration (by ensue of open law remedy) will not come in a ensue of a depressed chairman claiming additional remuneration in a polite court, in a coercion of a private law pill in tort, nor come in a ensue of a rapist probity grouping remuneration under Section 357 of a Code of Criminal Procedure.”

38. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 11, a Court was traffic with a emanate of behind hearing and a chagrin faced by a appellant therein. A Division Bench of a High Court in intra-court interest had postulated remuneration of Rs. 70,000/-. This Court, while traffic with a quantum of compensation, highlighted a pang and chagrin caused to a appellant and extended a compensation.

39. In a benefaction case, gripping in viewpoint a news of a CBI and a visualisation rendered by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra), suitable remuneration has to be awarded, nonetheless any snippet of doubt, to recompense a suffering, stress and a diagnosis by that a ultimate of life and autocracy under Article 21 of a Constitution withers away. We consider it suitable to approach a State of Kerala to pay  a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards remuneration to a appellant and, accordingly, it is so ordered. The pronounced volume shall be paid within 8 weeks by a State. We dive to explain that a appellant, if so advised, competence ensue with a polite fit wherein he has claimed some-more compensation. We have not voiced any opinion on a merits of a suit.

40. Mr. Giri, schooled comparison warn for a appellant and a appellant who also seemed in chairman on certain occasions have submitted that a extend of remuneration is not a resolution in a box of a benefaction nature. It is urged by them that a authorities who have been obliged to means such kind of harrowing outcome on a mind of a appellant should face a authorised consequences. It is suggested that a Committee should be constituted to take suitable stairs opposite a imperfect officials. Though a idea has been heartily opposed, nonetheless we unequivocally sojourn unimpressed by a pronounced oppugnation. We consider that a receiving poignant unfolding calls for structure of a Committee to find out ways and means to take suitable stairs opposite a imperfect officials. For a pronounced purpose, we consecrate a Committee that shall be headed by Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The Central Government and a State Government are destined to commission one officer any so that apposite movement can be taken. The Committee shall accommodate during Delhi and duty from Delhi. However, it has choice to hold meetings during suitable place in a State of Kerala. Justice D.K. Jain shall be a Chairman of a Committee and a Central Government is destined to bear a costs and yield perquisites as supposing to a late Judge when he heads a committee. The Committee shall be supposing with all logistical comforts for a control of a business including a secretarial staff by a Central Government.

41. Resultantly, a appeals mount authorised to a border indicated hereinabove. There shall be no sequence as to costs.

CJI.

(Dipak Misra)

(A. M. Khanwilkar)

(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud) New Delhi;

September 14, 2018

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  RCN : India has no Jurisdiction over Foreign courts
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation