S. NAMBI NARAYANAN versus SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC. on 14 September 2018

[2018] 12 S.C.R. 51

S. NAMBI NARAYANAN

v.

SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018)

SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Malicious investigation –Indiscriminate arrest of scientist – Compensation – Allegation ofleakage of official secrets and documents of ISRO by scientists –Arrest of appellant-scientist, alleging espionage against scientistsof IRSO – Appellant suffered custody for almost fifty days –Meanwhile, investigation by Special Investigation Team (SIT)handed over to CBI – Report by CBI that allegations not provedand were false – All accused discharged – In view thereof, decisionby the State Government to conduct re-investigation – Challengeto, by the appellant – Supreme Court quashed the order of re-investigation and suggested action against the Police officers –However, the State Government issued an order closing the case –Rounds of litigation – Division bench of the High Court held thatno action to be taken against the officers who were held allegedlyresponsible by CBI for appellant’s illegal arrest – On appeal, held:When person is confined within four walls of a police station orlock up, he suffers mental agony – There may not be infliction ofphysical pain but definitely there is mental torture – Reputation ofan individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity– Appellant was a successful scientist having national reputation –Lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest and put theappellant in police custody, made the appellant to undergo immensehumiliation, harassment and immeasurable anguish – His libertyand dignity were jeopardized – Entire prosecution initiated by thepolice was malicious – State police was dealing with an extremelysensitive case and after arresting the appellant and others, the State,on its own, transferred the case to CBI – Criminal law cannot be setin motion without any basis, on some kind of fancy or notion –Public law remedy warrants grant of compensation – Issuance of

A

B

CD

EF

G

H

Adirection to the State to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to theappellant – Committee headed by former judge of Supreme Courtto be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erringofficials.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtB

HELD: 1.1 The appellant was arrested and he has sufferedcustody for almost fifty days. His arrest has been seriouslycriticized in the closure report of the CBI. From the report, theharassment and mental torture faced by the appellant is obvious.When person is confined within four walls of a police station orClock up, he suffers mental agony. There may not be infliction ofphysical pain but definitely there is mental torture. Reputation ofan individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity.[Paras 29, 33, 35] [65-C-D; 74-A, F-G]

1.2 The entire prosecution initiated by the State police wasDmalicious and it has caused tremendous harassment andimmeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where theaccused is kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he isfound not guilty. The State police was dealing with an extremelysensitive case and after arresting the appellant and some others,the State, on its own, transferred the case to the Central BureauEof Investigation. After comprehensive enquiry, the closure reportwas filed. The submission by the State of Kerala as well as by theother respondents that the fault should be found with the CBIbut not with the State police, for it had transferred the case to theCBI, is to be rejected. The criminal law was set in motion withoutFany basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kindof fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant whichare basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was takeninto custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, hewas compelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invitesthe public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation ofGthe fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of theConstitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy.It is because life commands self-respect and dignity. It can bestated with certitude that the fundamental right of the appellantunder Article 21 has been gravely affected. [Para 31, 36]H[72-D-H; 73-A; 75-A-B]

1.3 The appellant, a successful scientist having nationalreputation, has been compelled to undergo immense humiliation.The lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest anyoneand put him in police custody has made the appellant to sufferthe ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked whenpsycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human beingcries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucifiedhis self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under thepublic law remedy. A civil suit has been filed for grant ofcompensation. That will not debar the constitutional court to grantcompensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannotlose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution,the humiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant.[Para 37] [75-F-H; 76-A-B]

1.4 Keeping in view the report of the CBI and the judgmentrendered by this Court in Chandrasekhar’s case, suitablecompensation has to be awarded, to compensate the suffering,anxiety and the treatment by which quintessence of life and libertyunder Art. 21 withers away. The State of Kerala is directed to paya sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant,within the stipulated period. It is clarified that the appellant, if soadvised, may proceed with the civil suit wherein he has claimedmore compensation. [Para 39] [76-F-G]

1.5 It has been submitted that the grant of compensation isnot the solution in a case of the present nature; that the authoritieswho have been responsible to cause such kind of harrowing effecton the mind of the appellant should face the legal consequences;and that a Committee should be constituted to take appropriatesteps against the erring officials. Though the suggestion has beenstrenuously opposed, yet this Court remain unimpressed by thesaid oppugnation. The obtaining factual scenario calls forconstitution of a Committee to find out ways and means to takeappropriate steps against the erring officials. For the said purpose,a Committee is constituted which shall be headed by Justice D.K.Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The Central Government andthe State Government are directed to nominate one officer eachso that apposite action can be taken. [Para 40] [76-H; 77-A-C]

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

[2018] 12 S.C.R.

AK. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Others(1998) 5 SCC 223 : [1998] 3 SCR 72 ; Japani Sahoov. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 :[2007] 8 SCR582 ;Punjab and Haryana High CourtBar Association v. State of Punjab and Others(1994) 1 SCC 616 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 915 ;BD.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 :[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ;Joginder Kumar v. State ofU.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 ;Kiran Bediv.Committee of Inquiry and Another (1989) 1 SCC494 :[1989] 1 SCR 20 ; Vishwanath Agrawal v. SarlaCVishwanath Agrawal(2012) 7 SCC 288 : [2012] 7 SCR607 ;Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State ofGujarat and Others (1991) 4 SCC 406 : [1991] 3 SCR936 ; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others (2006)3 SCC178 : [2006] 2 SCR 67 ; Hardeep Singh v. Stateof Madhya Pradesh (2012) 1 SCC 748 – referred to.DD.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)– referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the HighCourt of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. Nos. 1863 & 1959 of 2014.

Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Ashok Kumar Panda, Thomas P. Joseph,K. N. Balgopal, Sr. Advs., K. B. Sounder Rajan, Unnikrishnan, SudarshanRajan, Mahesh Kumar, P. K. Dey, Dhruv Sheoran, Arvind K. Sharma,Ms. Shruti Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Renjith. B, Lakshmi N.Kaimal, Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Anubhav Anand Pandey, G. Prakash, JishnuM. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Mukudan,Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Chinmay Deshpande, Ms. Geet Ahuja, VenkitaSubramoniam T. R., Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1.The appellant, a septuagenarian, aformer Scientist of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO),has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Kerala whereby it has overturned the decision of thelearned single Judge who had lancinated the order of the StateGovernment declining to take appropriate action against the police officerson the grounds of delay and further remitted the matter to theGovernment. To say the least, the delineation by the Division Bench istoo simplistic.

2. The exposé of facts very succinctly put is that on 20.01.1994,Crime No.225/94 was registered at Vanchiyoor Police Station againstone Mariam Rasheeda, a Maldivian National, under Section 14 of theForeigners Act, 1946 and paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order. Theinvestigation of the case was conducted by one S. Vijayan, the respondentno. 6 herein, who was the then Inspector, Special Branch,Thiruvananthapuram.

3. Mariam Rasheeda was arrested and sent to judicial custody on21.10.1994. Her custody was obtained by the Police on 03.11.1994 andshe was interrogated by Kerala Police and Intelligence Bureau (IB)officials. Allegedly, during interrogation, she made certain ‘confessions’which led to the registration of Crime No. 246/1994, Vanchiyoor PoliceStation on 13.11.1994 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Official SecretsActs, 1923, alleging that certain official secrets and documents of Indian A

BC

DE

F

G

H

ASpace Research Organisation (ISRO) had been leaked out by scientistsof ISRO.

4. Another Maldivian National Fousiya Hasan along with MariamRasheeda was arrested in Crime No. 246/1994. On 15.11.1994,investigation of both the cases was taken over by the Special InvestigationBTeam (SIT) headed by one Mr. Siby Mathews, respondent no. 1 herein,who was the then D.I.G. Crime of Kerala Police. On 21.11.1994, SriD. Sasikumaran, a scientist at ISRO, was arrested and on 30.11.1994,S. Nambi Narayanan, the appellant herein, was arrested along with twoother persons. Later, on 04.12.1994, consequent to the request of theGovernment of Kerala and the decision of the Government of India, theCinvestigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),the respondent no. 4 herein.

5. After the investigation, the CBI submitted a report before theChief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, under Section 173(2) ofCr.P.C. stating that the evidence collected indicated that the allegationsDof espionage against the scientists at ISRO, including the appellant herein,were not proved and were found to be false. This report was acceptedvide court’s order dated 02.05.1996 and all the accused were discharged.

6. That apart, in the said report, addressed to the Chief Secretary,Government of Kerala, the CBI, the respondent no. 4 herein, hadEcategorically mentioned:- “Notwithstanding the denial of the accused persons of theircomplicity, meticulous, sustain and painstaking investigations werelaunched by the CBI and every bit of information allegedly givenby the accused in their earlier statement to Kerala Police/IB aboutFthe places of meetings for purposes of espionage activities, thepossibility of passing on the drawing/documents of varioustechnologies, receipt of money as a consideration thereof etc.,were gone into, but none of the information could be substantiated.”

7. The CBI in its report, as regards the role of the respondentGno.1 herein, went on to state:- “I, Sh. Siby Mathew was heading the Special Investigation Teamand was, therefore, fully responsible for the conduct of investigationin the aforesaid two cases. Investigation conducted by the CBIhas revealed that he did not take adequate steps either in regard H

to the thorough interrogations of the accused persons by KeralaPolice or the verification of the so called disclosure made by theaccused persons. In fact, he left the entire investigation to IBsurrendering his duties. He ordered indiscriminate arrest of theISRO scientist and others without adequate evidence being onrecord. It stressed that neither Sh. Siby Mathew and his teamrecovered any incriminating ISRO documents from the accusedpersons nor any monies alleged to have been paid to the accusedpersons by their foreign masters. It was unprofessional on hispart to have ordered indiscriminate arrest to top ISRO scientistswho played a key role in successful launching of satellite in thespace and thereby caused avoidable mental and physical agonyto them. It is surprising that he did not take any steps at his ownlevel to conduct investigation on the points suggested by him. SinceSh. Mathew was based at Trivandrum, there was no justificationfor not having the searches conducted in the officials’ residentialpremises of the accused Nambi Narayanan was arrested by theKerala Police on 30.11.1994.

Vi. Shri Siby Mathew and his team miserably failed even inconducting verification of the records of Hotels viz., Hotel foretManor, Hotel Pankaj, Hotel Luciya, etc., which were located atTrivandrum to ascertain the veracity of the statement of accusedpersons….

The above facts are being brought to the notice of the competentauthority for their kind consideration and for such action as deemedfit.

[Emphasis added]

8. On 27.06.1996, the State Government of Kerala, beingdissatisfied with the CBI report, issued a notification withdrawing theearlier notification issued to entrust the matter to CBI and decided toconduct re-investigation of the case by the State Police. This notificationfor re-investigation was challenged by the appellant herein, before theHigh Court of Kerala, in O.P. No. 14248/1996-U but the notificationwas upheld by the High Court of Kerala vide order dated 27.11.1996.

9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Kerala High Court,the appellant herein, moved this Court by filing a special leave petition.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AThis Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and others[1] quashedthe notification of the State of Kerala for re-investigation holding thatthe said notification was against good governance and consequently, allaccused were freed of charges. The observations of this Court readthus:-

B“Even if we were to hold that State Government had the requisitepower and authority to issue the impugned notification, still thesame would be liable to be quashed on the ground of malafideexercise of power. Eloquent proof thereof is furnished by thefollowing facts and circumstances as appearing on the record….”

[Emphasis added]

C

10. Even after disposal of the case by this Court, the State ofKerala did not take any action against the erring police officers. In theyear 2001, the National Human Rights Commission ordered acompensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as interim reliefDto the appellant, who had sought Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one croreonly) as damages. A division bench of the Kerala High Court, vide orderdated 07.09.2012, asked the Government to pay the interim relief ofRs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) within three weeks of the saidorder.

E11. Thereafter, one Rajasekharan Nair filed a writ petition, beingW.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010, before the Kerala High Court on the basisof the report filed by the CBI seeking directions for the State of Keralato pass appropriate orders and take necessary action against the erringpolice officers for conducting a malicious investigation. In the meantime,the Government, by order dated 29.06.2011, decided not to take anyFdisciplinary action against the members of the SIT (erring police officers).The relevant portion of the order of the State of Kerala dated 29.06.2011reads as follows:- “5) Both the CBI and the accused-discharged persons approachedthe Hon’ble High Court against the action of Government ofGKerala. However, the High Court upheld the action of theGovernment. Against this the CBI and the accused – dischargedpersons approached the Supreme Court through SLPs againstthe action of Government of Kerala.

1(1998) 5 SCC 223H

6) In the meantime Government examined the case with referenceto the views obtained form the State Police Chief on theobservation of the CBI along with the explanation of the officersconcerned. After examination it was decided to await the decisionof the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtallowed the prayer of the CBI and the accused discharged personsquestioning the notification issued by the Government withdrawingthe consent given to the CBI to investigate into the espionagecase and also to “further investigate” the ISRO espionage caseand also directed to give Rs. 1 Lakh each to the accused appellantsas cost.

7) Government examined the matter with reference to the entirerecords of the case and in proper application of mind. It has beenfound that neither the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Courtwho accepted the Final Report nor the Hon’ble Supreme Courthad issued any direction to take action against the investigatingofficers viz :- Shri S. Vijayan, the then Inspector, Special Branch,Thiruvananthapuram City, Shri K.K. Joshwa, the then Dy. SP,CB CID, Thiruvananthapuram, Shri Siby Methews, the then DIG(Crimes) of the Special Investigation Team who investigated in tothe ISRO Espionage case.

8) In the circumstances, Government are of the view that it is notproper or legal to take disciplinary action against the officials forthe alleged lapses pointed out in the investigation report of theCBI at this juncture, after the lapse of 15 years and thereforeGovernment decide that no disciplinary action need be takenagainst the above officials for their alleged lapses in theinvestigation of the ISRO Espionage case and it is orderedaccordingly.”

12. W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Courthaving been rendered infructuous as the petitioner therein, RajesekharanNair, wanted to reserve his right to challenge the order issued by theGovernment. Despite insurmountable difficulties, the indomitable spiritof the appellant impelled him to file another writ petition, W.P. (C) No.30918 of 2012, before the Kerala High Court. The learned Judge of theHigh Court of Kerala, considering the pleadings of the parties and A

B

C

D

EF

G

Athereafter elaborately considering the matter, allowed the writ petitionand quashed the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the State of Keralawhereby the Kerala Government had decided not to take any disciplinaryaction against the members of the SIT (erring police officers) andconsequently remitted the matter to the State of Kerala, the respondentno. 2 herein, for reconsideration and passing further orders within threeBmonths. Though the learned single Judge left it open to the State ofKerala to decide on the course of action to be taken in the matter, yet itwas categorically mentioned that the reconsideration of the matter shouldnot just be a namesake which will make the administration of justice amockery.C

13. Though the said decision of the learned single Judge was notchallenged by the State of Kerala, yet two private persons, being therespondent nos. 1 and 5 herein, assailed the judgment before the DivisionBench in WA Nos. 1863 and 1959 of 2014. The Division Bench of theHigh Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2015,Dobserved that the only question before the Government was whetherany disciplinary action was to be initiated against the officers who weremembers of the SIT which conducted investigation for some days andthereafter reported that the matter required to be investigated by theCBI. The Division Bench opined that the factual finding or reportsubmitted by the CBI on 03.06.1996 in the matter could only be treatedEas an opinion expressed by the CBI which may be considered by theGovernment. Further, the Division Bench left it to the Government toconsider or not to consider the opinion expressed by the CBI in itsaforesaid report for the purpose of taking disciplinary action.

14. The Division Bench also held that the Kerala Government’sFdecision of not taking action against the erring police officers of the SITwas based on three specific findings, namely (i) the Government’sexamination of the case with reference to the views obtained from theState Police Chief with respect to the observations of the CBI alongwiththe explanation of the erring police officers concerned, (ii) the absenceGof any direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who had accepted thefinal report, and (iii) absence of any direction from the Supreme Court totake action against the investigating officers. That apart, the Governmentopined that it is not proper or legal to take disciplinary action against theofficers on the basis of CBI report after a lapse of fifteen years.

H

15. Be it noted, the Division Bench concluded by observing thus:

“Therefore the three reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 clearly indicatethat the Government has examined the relevant matters for arrivingat the said decision. When a decision has been taken not to proceedfurther with any disciplinary action, after considering such relevantmatters, the decision cannot be considered as unreasonable, unfairor arbitrary.”

And again:-

“In fact, whether the accused were tortured or not is a disputedquestion of fact. Further no such complaint was raised by theaccused. When the fact being so and since the petitioner havingalready approached the National Human Rights Commission andthe Civil Court, it is for the said agencies to arrive at a properfinding regarding such disputed facts.”

The said order is the subject matter of assail before this Court inthese appeals.

16. It is urged by the appellant that the prosecution launched againsthim by the Kerala police was malicious on account of two reasons, thefirst being that the said prosecution had a catastrophic effect on hisservice career as a leading and renowned scientist at ISRO therebysmothering his career, life span, savings, honour, academic work as wellas self-esteem and consequently resulting in total devastation of the peaceof his entire family which is an ineffaceable individual loss, and the second,the irreparable and irremediable loss and setback caused to thetechnological advancement in Space Research in India.

17. It has also been contended that the CBI, to whom theinvestigation of the case against the appellant was transferred, after athorough investigation for about eighteen months, filed a comprehensiveand exhaustive report wherein it had recommended that the case againstthe appellant be closed as the allegations against the appellant are totallyunsubstantiated.

18. The appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to thefact that the CBI in the said report had also highlighted several omissionsand commissions on the part of the Kerala Police Officers whileinvestigating the case against the appellant. That apart, the CBI, in its A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Areport submitted to the Kerala Government, had recommended that actionbe taken against the erring police officers for serious lapses in thedischarge of their duties. The appellant has, in his submissions, expressedhis agony over the fact that the State Government, instead of actingupon the recommendations made by the CBI and taking appropriateaction against the erring police officers, focused its entire attention onBtaking further action on the investigation against the appellant and hastenedto constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) through a notificationwhich was challenged before the High Court.

19. The appellant has further highlighted that this Court had earlieropined about the malicious prosecution launched against him. RelianceChas been placed on the criticism advanced by the NHRC against theState Government. Learned senior counsel has urged with anguish thatthe High Court has fallen into grave error by sustaining the order of theGovernment and remaining oblivious to the plight of the appellant. It ishis further submission that the appellant should be granted compensationDby taking recourse to the principle of constitutional tort and a committeebe constituted to take appropriate action against the officers who hadplayed with the life and liberty of a man of great reputation.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted thatthe contention of the appellant that if he had not been falsely implicated,Ehe would have made a huge difference in the cryogenic technology andthereby contributed immensely to the Nation is untenable as it is anadmitted fact that he had submitted his VRS on 01.11.1994 immediatelyafter the arrest of Mariam Rasheeda, and on the very same day, hisresignation was accepted by the Superior Officer. It is pointed out thatthe claim of significant contribution to the Nation is being put forth byFappellant only to gain the sympathy of the Court.

21. It is further canvassed that the entire investigation of the caseagainst the appellant was carried out under close supervision of the thenDirector General of Police (Intelligence) & Director General of Police(Law and Order) and daily reports were sent to them during the courseGof the investigation. It has also been highlighted that on the day of arrestof the appellant, the respondent no. 1 had submitted a report to the DGPrequesting entrusting of the matter to the CBI which is a clear indicationof the fact that there was no mala fide on the part of the said respondentno. 1 and other officials of the Kerala Police. The respondent no. 1 has H

contended that the entire gamut of facts reveals that he and other officialshad performed their duties with full responsibility and the evidence onrecord and the statements of other accused had clearly shown theinvolvement of the accused persons in the activities of espionage.

22. The respondent no. 1, in order to substantiate his claim thatthe appellant and the other accused persons were never subjected toany torture by the respondent no. 1 or other police officers, seeks todraw the attention of the Court to the findings of a Division Bench of theHigh Court which had dealt with a writ petition filed when the investigationwas pending before the CBI. It is put forth on behalf of the respondentno. 1 that he himself did not take any steps for thorough interrogation ofthe accused and sent the same to the CBI and, hence, the argument thathe was tortured by the State police was far from the truth. As per thenotification dated 20.01.1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministryof Home Affairs, the Central Government conferred the powers ofSuperintendent of Police on officers of the rank of Assistant Director ofthe Intelligence Bureau and in the instant case, the IB had come into thepicture long before the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT)by the State Government.

23. It is highlighted by the respondent no. 1 that there was sufficientevidence indicating the involvement of the appellant and it had also cometo the notice of the respondent no. 1 that the appellant, who had submittedhis VRS, was intending to leave the country and in the light of the saidfacts, the arrest of the appellant and other accused persons had becomenecessary. Learned counsel would contend that the stand of the CBIthat no incriminating records had been recovered is unacceptableinasmuch as the final report reveals that 235 documents were recoveredfrom the house of the accused persons and the reason for the same wasan issue which required investigation.

24. Further, it is contended that the case had been investigated bythe respondent no. 1 only for 17 days and thereafter, it was the CBI thatcarried out the investigation and, hence, the responsibility to apprise themedia fell on the CBI and not on the respondent no. 1. Various otheraspects have been controverted to show the non-involvement of thesaid respondent and the bona fide act on his part to transfer the case tothe CBI. To make allegations against the SIT after transfer of the caseto the CBI is unwarranted.

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A

BC

D

EF

G

H

A25. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that thewhole thrust of the argument of the appellant that he was subjected totorture falls to the ground as the IB officials against whom the majorcharges of torture had been levelled had not been made accountable forthe said action and, therefore, it would be discriminatory to hold therespondent no. 1 and other police officers of Kerala accountable for theBalleged torture. That apart, it is urged that the learned single Judge of theHigh Court had only remanded the matter to the State Government forfresh consideration and had not given any finding on the allegation oftorture and the respondent no. 1 had also contended that the appellantnever raised any allegations of torture before the CJM Court. Further, itCis argued that the appellant was in custody of Kerala police only for 5days, while the CBI had taken remand of the accused on three occasionsand had kept in custody for forty five days.

26. On behalf of the CBI, the fourth respondent, it is submittedthat inspite of highlighting several lapses and faults on the part of theDpolice officials while carrying out investigation against the appellant andother accused persons, the Kerala Government has failed to take anyaction against the erring officials. It has been submitted that the reasonsgiven by the Kerala Government for not initiating any action against theerring police officers, who had not only inflicted inhuman custodial tortureto the scientists of ISRO but also arrested them while they were workingEon a crucial space programme, was an unpardonable lapse. It is pointedout that if the action of the Government of Kerala is not interfered withon the ground of delay, it would tantamount to taking advantage of one’sown wrong doing and further adding a premium to an unpardonablefault.F

27. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted thatthe conduct of the police officials is criminal in nature as per theinvestigation and report submitted by the CBI and the investigation ofthe CBI had clearly established that the investigation carried out by theState police was full of lapses and also involved employment of illegalGmeans such as criminal torture. The stand of the respondents is that thereport is recommendatory but it was incumbent upon the State of Keralato act upon the same as that would have reflected an apposite facet ofconstitutional governance and respect for individual liberty and dignity.Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty[2], it is submitted that the State of Kerala could nottake shelter of the doctrine of delay and laches. The erring conduct ofthe police officers is of criminal nature and justice can be meted out tothe appellant only by taking appropriate action against the said officersalong with payment of compensation for the humiliation and disgracesuffered by the victim.

28. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondentno. 4 that investigation can be initiated to instill confidence in the publicmind. To buttress his stand, the decision in Punjab and Haryana HighCourt Bar Association v. State of Punjab and others[3] has been pressedinto service.

29. First, we shall advert to the aspect of grant of compensation.From the analysis above, we are of the view that the appellant wasarrested and he has suffered custody for almost fifty days. His arresthas been seriously criticized in the closure report of the CBI. Thecomments contained in the report read as follows:- “2. Consequent upon the request of Govt. of Kerala, theinvestigation of Crime No 225/95 and No. 246/94 was entrustedto the .CHI for investigation vide DP&T Notification No. 228/59/94-AVD.II (i) & (ii) dated 2/12/94. Accordingly, case RC. 10(S)94 lis. 14 of Foreigners Act and Para 7 of Foreigners Act, 1948(corresponding to Crime No. 225/95) and case RC 11 (S)/94U/s. I20-B r/w See. 3, 4 & 5 of official Secrets Act r/w Sec. 34IPC (corresponding to Crime No. 246/94). were registered on3/12/94 in SIU. V Branch of CBl/SIC.II/New Delhi.

3. Immediately after the registration of the case, theinvestigation was taken upon 4/12/94 and the police case files ofboth the cases were taken over. After investigation, a Chargesheetin Case Crime no. 225.94 was filed on 17/12/94 against MariamFasheeda. This case has ended in acquittal of accused MariyamRasheeda vide Judgment dated 14.11.1995, passed by the Hon’bleChief Judicial Magistrate, Cochin.

4. The local police during the course of investigation of casecrime No. 225/94 had seized a Diary written in Dwivegi scriptfrom accused Mariyam Rasheeda, the contents of which 2 (2007) 7 SCC 394

3 (1994) 1 SCC 616

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

indicated that she was collecting informations about certainMaldivian nationals based in Bangalore who were allegedlyplanning a coup against the Govt. of Maldives. It was furtherrevealed that accused Mariyam Rasheeda along with FauziyaHassan had stayed in Room No. 205 of Hotel Smart, Trivandrumfrom 17/9/94 to 20/10/94 and during this period a number oftelephone calls were found to have been made from Room No.205 to Tel. No. of D. Sasikumaran, a senior Scientist of IndianSpace Research Organisation, Valiamala. Accused MariyamRasheeda while in Kerala Police custody in this case wasinterrogated by Kerala Police and officials of IntelligenceBureau. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda allegedly made a statementrevealing the contacts of Fauziya Hassan and of one Zuheira, aMaldivian national settled in Colombo with Mohiyuddin state tobe Pakistani national working as Assistant Manager, Habib Bankin Male and Mazhar Khan, another Pak National. She alsoallegedly disclosed that according to Fauziya Hassan,D. Sasikumaran was friend of Zuheria. Based on the disclosuresallegedly made by accused Mariyam Rasheeda coupled with thecontents of her diary and the telephone contacts withD. Sasikumaran, the instant case was registered on the suspicionthat she and Fauziya Hassan along with others were taking partin activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.

5. The investigation of crime No. 246/94 remained withSpecial Branch only for two days and on 15.11.94, theinvestigation was taken over by Special Investigation was takenover by Special Investigation Team headed by Shri Siby Mathews,DIG (Crime), Trivandrum. During the course of investigation, theKerala Police/Crime branch arrested 6 accused persons on thedates 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 search of the office room as well as residence of D.Sasikumaran at Space Application Centre, Ahemedabad, wasconducted on 21.11.94 and that of his office and residence atTrivandrum on 30.11.94. The search of office as well asresidence of accused Chandrasekhar and S.K. Sharma, wereconducted on 21.11.94 at Bangalore. The house search ofMs Sara Palani of Bangalore where accused Fauziya Hassanwas residing, was also conducted on 21.11.94. In addition, thehouse seach of Shri. M.K. Govinadan Nair and Shri MohanaPrasad, both senior Scientists of LPSC Valiamala, was alsoconducted but nothing incriminating was recovered. The CrimeBranch also exdamined 27 witnesses but none of the witnessesstated anything which could throw any light about the allegedespionage activities of the accused persons. The 7 witnesses ofHotel Samrat, Tridandrum, proved the stay of accused MariyamRahseeda and Fauziya Hassan in Room No. 205 in Hotel Samratfrom 19.9.94 to 20.10.94 and the visit of Sasikumaran to HotelSamarat to meet Mariyam Rasheeda. The witnesses of HotelGeeth, Trivandrum and that of Hotel Rock Holm, Trivandrum,proved the visit of accused Sasikumaran alongwith MariyamRasheeda to the said hotel on 10.10.94 and witjiMariyam Rasheedato the said hotel on 10.10.94 and 28.9.94, respectively.”

And again:-

And again:-

“10. Though no independent evidence has come on record duringthe course of local Police/Crime branch investigation about thealleged espionage activities of the accused persons, yet based onthe revelations allegedly made by the accused, the module thatemerged regarding the espionage activities was that accusedNambi Narayanan and Sasikumaran used to pass on documentsdrawings of ISRO relating to Viking/Vikas Engine technology,Cryogenic Engine technology and PSLV Flight Data/Drawingsand accused Chandersekhar, S.K. Sharma and Raman Srivastava,the then IGP South Zone, Kerala passed on secrets ofAeronautical Defence Establishments, Bangalore. The documents/drawings were allegedly passed on to Mohd. Aslam, a Pak nuclearscientist and Mohd. Pasha/ahmed Pasha for monetoryconsiderations and that the amount running into lacs of US dollarswas received andshared by accused Sasikumaran, Chandrasekhar, AB

CD

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Nambi Narayanan and Shri Raman Srivastava and thatMohiyuddin, Asstt. Manager of Habib Bank, Male, was one ofthe persons who was financing the accused. Accused FauziyaHassan, zuheria, a Maldivian national settled in Colomobo,Mr. Alexi Vassive of Glovkosmos, Russia, and Shri Ramansrivastava, worked as conduits. Some of the important meetingswhich were held for espionage activities and in which thedocuments were allegedly passed on for a consideration, wereheld at International Hotel Madras on 24.5.1994, m Bangalore inthe mid September and on 23.9.94 at Hotel Luciya, Trivandrum,in which some of the accused as well as said Zuheira and ShriRaman Srivastava, IGP, took part.

11. Immediately after taking over the investigation , by CBI,all the 6 accused persons are thoroughly interrogated, taking thestatements purported to have been made by the accused beforethe Kerala Police/IB, to be true, but all of them denied havingindulged in any espionage activity. On being confronted with thestatements made by them before Kerala Police as well as IBofficials, the accused took the plea that the statements were madeon the suggested lines under duress. Though there was nocomplaint either from ISRO or fromDE Bangalore about the lossof any documents, the alleged revelations of the accused madebefore local Police/Intelligence officials were taken at their facevalue and focused investigation was carried out to find out thedetails and purposes of various visits of accused MariyamRasheeda and Fauziya Hassan to India, their places of stay wereverified, the persons, including accused,, with whom they came incontact were examined and efforts are made to gather oral aswell as documentary evidence to find out whether the accusedhave committed any acts which were prejudicial to thesovereignty, integrity and security of the State and violative of theOfficial Secrets Act, 1923

“Accused Nambi Narayanan jointed Thumba EquotarialLaunching System on 12.9.1996 as Technical Assistant (Design)and then from time to time he was promoted and was working asScientist-II since January 93. In system Project, Associates Project

S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

Director GSLV and Project Director PS-II and PS-LV and wasresponsible for the organization and management of launchvehicle system projects in LPSC.

32. During the investigation neither any evidence came on recordindicating that the accused indulged in espionage activities by wayof passing on of secret documents of ISRO of any Defenceestablishments nor any incriminating documents could berecovered. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda has taken the stand thatshe was to return to Male on 29.9.94 but could reach TrivandrumAirport as she did not get any transport on account of the ‘bandh’.Subsequently, the Indian Airlines (lights were suspended onaccount of plague scare and thus, she could not go. Since shewas going to complete stay of 90 days on 14.10.94, and to enableher to stay beyond 90 days she required the permission of thepolice authorities, she alongwith Fauziya Hassan visited office ofthe Commissioner of Police and contacted Inspector Vijayan. Shewas advised by Inspector Vijayan to first obtain a confirmed ticketfor her return and then to approach for the extension of her stay.Accordingly, she got one Indian Airlines ticket and one Air Lankaticket confirmed for her departure of 17.10.94 and approachedInspector Vijayan. However, Inspector vijayan took ticket as wellas her Passport and ultimately she was arrested on 20.10.94.

xx

38. As per the statement of accused Nambi Narayanan allegedlymade before Kerala Police, a deal for sale Viking/Vikas Enginedrawings was struck with Habibullah Khan for Rs. 1.5 crores.Two installments of the drawings were given to Rauziya atThampanoor ‘Bus Stand and Luciya Hotel and the thirdinstallment was scheduled to be given on 5,12.94. Another dealfor transfer for Rocket Launch details of LPSC was finalizedwith Fauziya Hassan and Ahemd Pash at hotel Fort Manor duringFebruary, 1993 for a consideration of USS 1.00 lakh and that on11.10.94 he and Sasikumaran took Fauziya from Hotel Samrat toa nearby dam and engaged in transfer of packets containingCryogenic technology.

A

BC

DE

F

G

AThe investigation revealed:-

(xiv) Investigation has established that the accused personsincluding Rasheeda, Nambi Narayanan and Chandrasekhar wereharassed and physically abused. It is curious that while the IBhad all the six accused persons in their custody, they recorded thestatements of only Sasikumaran, Chandrashekar, Fauziya andRasheeda and not of Nambi Narayanan and S.K.. Shanna. Thereis reason to believe that the interrogators forced the accusedpersons to make statements on suggested lines. The CBI seizedthe personal diary of Chandrasekhar on 9.12.94. which containedthe details of his activities almost on day to day basis. IfChandrasekhar had made truthful disclosures to the KeralaPolice/IB interrogators, certainly they would have alsodiscovered the existence of his diary which did not support caseagainst him. He made disclosures before the CBI regarding theexistence of his diary which on analysis corroborates his versionregarding his movements ex. Bangalore.

B

C

D

(xv) On the request of CBI, Director, LPSC had constituted aCommittee of experts of determine whether any documents werefound to be missing. The Committee gave a report to say thatonly 254 documents were found to be missing which wererandom in nature and did not pertain to a particular system or subsystem. The Committee also noted that Vikas Engine wasreleased on the basis of the in-house drawings which wereprepared after modifying the SEP drawings and all the in-housedrawings were available and there was likely to be no impact ofsome small number of missing documents. Similarly, all the 16.800sheets in the Fabrication Divn. where Sasikumaran was workingwere found to be intact.

E

F

E

F

(xvi) Neither any incriminating documents of any money- Indianor foreign have been recovered form the accused persons duringsearches conducted by the Kerala Police and later by the CBI.The scrutiny of bank accounts also do not indicate anythingsuspicious in this regard.

G

(xvii) It is reasonable to believe that if Rasheeda was involved inany espionage activity regarding ISRO, she should have made amention thereof in her diary which is not the case.

H

114. During course of investigation, certain lapses were found onthe part of earlier investigations/interrogators. The report is beingsubmitted that Government of Kerala/Govt. of India, separatelyon these aspects.

115. So sum up, in view of the evidence on record, oral as well asdocumentary, as discussed above, the allegations of espionageare not proved and have been found to be false. It is, therefore,prayed that the report may kindly be accepted and the accuseddischarged and permission be accorded to return the seizeddocuments to the concerned.”

From the aforesaid report, the harassment and mental torture facedby the appellant is obvious.

30. The report submitted by the CBI has been accepted by thisCourt in K. Chandrasekhar (supra). Dealing with the conclusion ofthe report, this Court stated:- “(iii) Though the investigation of the case centered round espionageactivities in ISRO no complaint was made by it to that effect nordid it raise any grievance on that score. On the contrary, from thepolice report submitted by the CBI we find that several scientistsof this organisation were examined and from the statements madeby those officers the CBI drew the following conclusion:

“The sum and substance of the aforesaid statements is thatISRO does not have a system of classifying drawings/documents. In other words, the documents/drawings are notmarked as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Classified etc.Further, ISRO follows an open-door policy in regard to theissue of documents to the scientists. Since ISRO is aresearch-oriented organisation, any scientist wanting to studyany document is free to go to the Documentation Cell/Libraryand study the documents. As regards the issue of documentsto various Divisions, the procedure was that only the copiesused to be issued to the various divisions on indent after dulyentering the same in the Documentation Issue Registers. Duringinvestigation, it has been revealed that various drawings runninginto 16,800 sheets were issued to the Fabrication Division whereaccused Sasi Kumaran was working, and after his transfer to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ASAP, Ahmedabad on 7-11-1994, all the copies of the drawingswere found to be intact. Nambi Narayanan being a seniorscientist, though had access to the drawings, but at no stageany drawings/documents were found to have been issued tohim. They have also stated that it was usual for scientists totake the documents/drawings required for any meetings/Bdiscussions to their houses for study purposes. In thesecircumstances, the allegation that Nambi Narayanan and SasiKumaran might have passed on the documents to a third party, A

is found to be false.”

It further appears that at the instance of CBI, a Committee ofsenior scientists was constituted to ascertain whether any classifieddocuments of the organisation were stolen or found missing andtheir report shows that there were no such missing documents.There cannot, therefore, be any scope for further investigation inrespect of purported espionage activities in that organisation inrespect of which only the Kerala Police would have jurisdiction toinvestigate; C

D

31. As stated earlier, the entire prosecution initiated by the Statepolice was malicious and it has caused tremendous harassment andimmeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where the accusedis kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he is found not guilty.EThe State police was dealing with an extremely sensitive case and afterarresting the appellant and some others, the State, on its own, transferredthe case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. After comprehensiveenquiry, the closure report was filed. An argument has been advancedby the learned counsel for the State of Kerala as well as by the otherFrespondents that the fault should be found with the CBI but not with theState police, for it had transferred the case to the CBI. The saidsubmission is to be noted only to be rejected. The criminal law was setin motion without any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, onsome kind of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellantwhich are basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was takenGinto custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he wascompelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invites the publiclaw remedy for grant of compensation for violation of the fundamentalright envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a situation, H

it springs to life with immediacy. It is because life commands self-respectand dignity.

32. There has been some argument that there has been nocomplaint with regard to custodial torture. When such an argument isadvanced, the concept of torture is viewed from a narrow perspective.What really matters is what has been stated in D.K. Basu v. State ofW.B.[4]. The Court in the said case, while dealing with the aspect oftorture, held:- “10. ‘Torture’ has not been defined in the Constitution or in otherpenal laws. ‘Torture’ of a human being by another human being isessentially an instrument to impose the will of the ‘strong’ overthe ‘weak’ by suffering. The word torture today has becomesynonymous with the darker side of human civilisation.

‘Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes youcan almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is noway to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, coldas ice and heavy as a stone, paralysing as sleep and dark asthe abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It isa desire to kill and destroy including yourself.’

— Adriana P. Bartow

11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been thesubject of so many conventions and declarations as ‘torture’ —all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of thecommitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains thattorture is more widespread now than ever before. ‘Custodialtorture’ is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation whichdestroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is acalculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignityis wounded, civilisation takes a step backward — flag of humanitymust on each such occasion fly half-mast.

12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not onlyinfliction of body pain but the mental agony which a personundergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up.Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extentof trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

33. From the aforesaid, it is quite vivid that emphasis has beenlaid on mental agony when a person is confined within the four walls ofa police station or lock up. There may not be infliction of physical painbut definitely there is mental torment. In Joginder Kumar v. State ofU.P. and others[5], the Court ruled:- A

“8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time,the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has beenreceiving complaints about violation of human rights because ofindiscriminate arrests. How are we to strike a balance betweenthe two?

B

C9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The lawof arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges,on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations andresponsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights,liberties and privileges of the single individual and those ofindividuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted andDwhere to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding whichcomes first — the criminal or society, the law violator or the lawabider….”

34. In Kiran Bedi v.Committee of Inquiry and another[6], thisCourt reproduced an observation from the decision in D.F. Marion v.EDavis[7]:- “25. … ‘The right to the enjoyment of a private reputation,unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessaryto human society. A good reputation is an element of personalsecurity, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the rightFto the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.’”

35. Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of his rightto life with dignity. In a different context, a two Judge Bench of thisCourt in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal[8] hasobserved:- G

“55. … reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also thepurest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is 5 (1994) 4 SCC 2606 (1989) 1 SCC 4947 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)H8 (2012) 7 SCC 288

S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]

extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. Itis a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity.”

36. From the aforesaid analysis, it can be stated with certitudethat the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 has beengravely affected. In this context, we may refer with profit how thisCourt had condemned the excessive use of force by the police. InDelhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and others[9], itsaid:- “39. The main objective of police is to apprehend offenders, toinvestigate crimes and to prosecute them before the courts andalso to prevent commission of crime and above all to ensure lawand order to protect the citizens’ life and property. The law enjoinsthe police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracyis to ensure fair investigation and fair trial to an offender. Thepurpose and object of Magistracy and police are complementaryto each other. It is unfortunate that these objectives have remainedunfulfilled even after 40 years of our Constitution. Aberrationsof police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law andorder situation have been subject of adverse comments from thisCourt as well as from other courts but it has failed to have anycorrective effect on it. The police has power to arrest a personeven without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. Theamplitude of this power casts an obligation on the police …[and it] must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person isarrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights mustnot be violated.”

37. If the obtaining factual matrix is adjudged on the aforesaidprinciples and parameters, there can be no scintilla of doubt that theappellant, a successful scientist having national reputation, has beencompelled to undergo immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude ofthe State police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has madethe appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shockedwhen psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human beingcries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified hisself-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public lawremedy. We are absolutely conscious that a civil suit has been filed for AB

CDE

FG

Agrant of compensation. That will not debar the constitutional court togrant compensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannotlose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, thehumiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant. In Sube Singh v.State of Haryana and others[10], the three-Judge Bench, after referringto the earlier decisions, has opined:-B

“38. It is thus now well settled that the award of compensationagainst the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redressof an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however,depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award ofCsuch compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not comein the way of the aggrieved person claiming additionalcompensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the privatelaw remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal courtordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of CriminalDProcedure.”

38. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[11], the Courtwas dealing with the issue of delayed trial and the humiliation faced bythe appellant therein. A Division Bench of the High Court in intra-courtappeal had granted compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. This Court, while dealingEwith the quantum of compensation, highlighted the suffering and humiliationcaused to the appellant and enhanced the compensation.

39. In the instant case, keeping in view the report of the CBI andthe judgment rendered by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra),suitable compensation has to be awarded, without any trace of doubt, toFcompensate the suffering, anxiety and the treatment by which thequintessence of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution withersaway. We think it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to pay a sumof Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly,it is so ordered. The said amount shall be paid within eight weeks by theState. We hasten to clarify that the appellant, if so advised, may proceedGwith the civil suit wherein he has claimed more compensation. We havenot expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit.

40. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and theappellant who also appeared in person on certain occasions have submitted 10 (2006) 3 SCC 178H11 (2012) 1 SCC 748

that the grant of compensation is not the solution in a case of the presentnature. It is urged by them that the authorities who have been responsibleto cause such kind of harrowing effect on the mind of the appellantshould face the legal consequences. It is suggested that a Committeeshould be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring officials.Though the suggestion has been strenuously opposed, yet we really remainunimpressed by the said oppugnation. We think that the obtaining factualscenario calls for constitution of a Committee to find out ways and meansto take appropriate steps against the erring officials. For the said purpose,we constitute a Committee which shall be headed by Justice D.K. Jain,a former Judge of this Court. The Central Government and the StateGovernment are directed to nominate one officer each so that appositeaction can be taken. The Committee shall meet at Delhi and functionfrom Delhi. However, it has option to hold meetings at appropriate placein the State of Kerala. Justice D.K. Jain shall be the Chairman of theCommittee and the Central Government is directed to bear the costsand provide perquisites as provided to a retired Judge when he heads acommittee. The Committee shall be provided with all logistical facilitiesfor the conduct of its business including the secretarial staff by the CentralGovernment.

41. Resultantly, the appeals stand allowed to the extent indicatedhereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H