NAVKIRAN SINGH AND ORS.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

A                        NA VKIRAN SINGH AND ORS.
                                          v.
                        STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

                                   JULY 2, 1995

B             [KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 32.

          Public Interest Litigation-Kidnapping and murder of advocates-Reply
C filed by State unsatisfactory-Police filing "untraced" reports accepted by
    Magistrate by cryptic Order-Senior Officer of CBI to investigate the kidnap-
    ping of Advocates-Direction issued to render all help and assistance to
    CBI-State to provide security to all those advocates who genuinely ap-
    prehend danger to their lives from militants/anti social elements in the
    State-Recommendation by the District Judge or Registrar High Court may
D   be treated as genuine and the State Government may consider the same
    sympathetically.

          A letter-petition filed by the Petitioners, who were practising Advo-
    cates, was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of
    India. The petition highlighted the failing of the rule of law at the hands
E   of State Administration and its law enforcing agencies, more prominently
    the place and paramilitary forces, especially with regard to the kidnapping
    of Advocates in the State and their subsequent elimination.

          It was prayed in the petition that the persons responsible for killing
    of the advocates be suitably punished, appropriate compensation should
F
    be paid to the kith and kin of kidnapped advocates by the State and
    protection and security cover be given to those advocates who happen to
    conduct cases of TADA, police excesses and human-rights violations.

          On behalf of the respondents it was contended that in spite of the
G   best efforts made to trace the kidnapped advocates no clue was found; and
    that "untraced" report was filed which was accepted by the concerned
    Magistrate.

          Disposing the petition, this Court

H         HELD : 1.1. This Court is neither satisfied with the reply filed by the
                                       726
        NAVKIRANSINGHv. STATEOFPB.[KULDJPSINGH,J.]                        727

State nor with the concerned Magistrates who accepted the "untraced" A
reports. It is necessary to have further investigation by an independent
agency which is not under the influence of the State police and other
authorities responsible for the law and order in the State. No citizen of this
Court much less the advocates who are protectors of human rights can be
permitted to be kidnapped and eliminated in the manner it is alleged. In
any case this court is unable to accept the version of the State that its B
machinery including the police is not in a position to trace culprits respon-
sible for the kidnapping of the advocates. [731-D-E]

       1.2. The CBI is directed to appoint a senior officer to hold investiga-
tion/inquiry into the kidnapping of the advocates. The Chief Secretary,          C
Home Secretary, Director General of Police of the State are directed to
render all help and assistance to the CBI in conducting the investigation.
                                                                    [731-F-G)
      2. The .State must provide security to all those advocates who genuine-
ly apprehend danger to their lives from militants/antisocial elements in the D
State. If the request for security is recommended by the district ju_dge of
the District or the Registrar of the High Court it may be treated as genuine
and the State Government may consider the same sympathetically.
                                                               (731-H, 732-A]
      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Cr!.) No.
242-258 of 1994.                                                                 E

      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

      R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioners.

     K.T.S. Tnlsi Additional Solicitor General, and R.S. Suri for the            F
Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      KULDIP SINGH, J. A letter-petition dated May 29, by Navkiran
Singh and 16 other advocates practising in the Punjab and Haryana High G
Court at Chandigarh and various other places in punjab voicing their
concern over the kidnaping/elimination of advocates in the State of Punjab
was addressed to the Chief Justice of India. Copies thereof were sent to
all the Judges of the Supreme Court. A note was received from the
residential office of one of us (Kuldip Singh, J .) desiring that the letter be H
    728                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, if
    permitted under the Rules, and be placed before an appropriate Bench.
    The petition was examined by the PIL-Cell of the Supreme Court and it
    was decided to treat the letter-petition as a petition under Article 32 of the
    Constitution of India.

B         Paras 3 & 4 of the writ petition are reproduced hereunder :

            "3. The Punjab situation is not unknown to anybody. Rather, it has
            gone to International sphere : The most talked about matter is the
            failing of the rule of law it the hands of State Administration and
c           its law enforcing agencies, more prominently the police and
            paramilitary forces. For the present, we are not concerned with
            any other aspect of the matter, but our serious concern is with
            regard to the kidnapping of Advocates in Punjab by the Punjab
            Police and thereafter elimination thereof, but taking the stand that
            their whereabouts are not known to the police. Ranbir Singh
D
            Mansahia, an Advocate from Bathinda was kidnapped by the
            Punjab Police some three years ago and uptil now his whereabouts
            are not made known. Thereafter, Jagwinder Singh, an Advocate
            from Kapurthala was taken away by the Punjab Police and possibly
            was done to death. Thereafter, towards the start of 1993 Kulwant
E           Singh, Advocate of Ropar, his wife, and their son, only 1-1/2 years
            old, was kidnapped by the Ropar Police (Punjab) and after a long
            persuasion of the matter, the State took the stand that they have
            been killed at the hands of a terrorist. The State was not even
            prepared to investigate into the case and ultimately, the matter
            went over to the Supreme Court from where there was a direction
F
            to probe into the case by the CBI, which is yet not complete. It is
            a fact that Advocates of Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh
            remained on strike for about two months in relation to the matter
            of Kulwant Singh. With regard to other Advocates also, at some
            places, the Advocates went on strikes.
G
             4. Now on 2.5.94, Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate of Sangrur
             was returning to his village after court work. Earlier, he used to
             come to the courts on a scooter. Sensing trouble from the police
             there, he started travelling in the bus with a view that he will be
H            more safe in the company of public in the bus. It is also stated that
            NAVKIRAN SINGH v. STATE OF PB. [KULDIP SINGH, J.]               729

            he was made to get down from the bus on the date referred to A
            above by some armed persons in plain clothes, who were having a
            vehicle without number. There were three eye witnesses of the
•           same village to which Shri Bhatti belongs. The police posts on both
            sides of the road were there from where he was made to alight
            from the bus. Every vehicle is to be checked especially when it is
                                                                                  B
            without number and is occupied by persons having weapons.
            Therefore, there cannot be any other kidnapper excepting the
            Punjab police people. Uptil now, his whereabouts are not available,
            although, the police registered a case of kidnapping. It is a strange
            situation that when the police is itself kidnapping, a false case is
            being registered and its outcome can will be imagined. Various         c
            Bar Associations are taking up the matter in different ways by
            approaching the State Administration or seeking legal remedy. It

-           will not be difficult to predict that the kidnapped Advocate will
            suffer the fate of the type of Mansahia, Jagwinder Singh and
            Kulwant Singh."
                                                                                   D
          It was, inter alia prayed in the petition that the persons responsible
    for kidnapping and killing of the advocates be suitably punished, ap-
    propriate compensation should be paid to the kith and kin of the kid-
    napped advocates by the State and protection and security cover be given
    to those advocates who happen to conduct cases of TADA, police excesses        E
    and human-rights violations.

          This Court on November 7, 1994 issued notice to the State of Punjab
    through Chief Secretary and the Home Secretary. Notice was also issued
    to the District Magistrates and the Superintendents of Police of Bathinda,
    Ropar and Sangrur. The State of Punjab has filed reply to the writ petition    F
    by way of affidavit of Kamai! Chand Banga, Deputy Secretary, Punjab,
    Department of Human Affairs and justices, Chandigarh.

          So far as the kidnapping the murder of Kulwant Singh, advocate of
    Ropar, his wife and his small child is concerned, this Court has already
    entrusted the investigation to the CBI which is being conducted by the said G
    agency. Similarly, V.K. Bali, J. of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has
    directed the CBI to hold investigation regarding the kidnapping on May
    12, 1994 of Shri Sukhwinder Singh Bhatti, advocate practising in District
    Courts at Sangrur. The investigation so entrusted to the CBI by the High
    Court is still pending. So far as these two cases are concerned nothing more H
    730                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A need be done. The result of the investigation by the CBI is awaited.

          Shri Jagwinder Singh alias Happy, advocate Kapurthala was allegedly
    kidnapped by the Police on September 25, 1992. Nasib Kaur, wife of               •
    Sukhdev Singh and mother of J agwinder Singh, advocate lodged the first
    information report on October 1, 1992 in the following words:
B
            "On 25.9.92 at about 6.30 A.M. myself, my husband, daughter and
            two sons and daughter were present in the house. I was standing
            near the door, a gypsy blue in colour came from the city side in
            which some persons in uniform were sitting and stopped in front
c           of door of our house. One person with two stars on his shoulders,
            height about 5'-8" alighted from the gypsy and asked about my son
            Jagwinder Singh @Happy who is practising lawyer at Jalandhar,
            I replied that he is present in the house and entered the house to
            call him. The person wearing two stars alongwith two other man
            in uniform immediately followed me. I introduced them with my
                                                                                     ..
D
            son Jagwinder Singh. They said that he is called by officers of staff.
            My son Jagwinder Singh asked that he would come himself to the
            staff about they did not agree. Myself and Jagwinder Singh came
            out of the house with them from where they took J agwinder Singh
            towards city in the gypsy. My husband also requested them that
E           he will produce Jagwinder Singh in staff but in vain. We kept on
            searching out son J agwinder Singh at out own but could not find
            any clue. My son Jagwinder Singh has been kidnapped by 5 sikh
            uniformed persons and is kept some where. Today I was coming
            to lodge the report alongwith my husband but you have met. Action
            be taken. The Statement has been heard which is correct. I can
F
            identify the persons on seeing them. My son has been taken away
            with the intention to kill".

          We have carefully perused the reply filed on behalf of the State of
G   Punjab. It has been repeatedly stated in the reply that efforts were made
    to trace Jagwinder Singh, advocate but he could not be found. Finally Shri
    R.L. Bhagat, Superintendent Police Headquarters came to the conclusion
    on February 10, 1993 that no clue was found in spite of the best efforts
    made to trace Shri Jagwinder Singh, advocate and as such untraced report
    was filed which was accepted by the Magistrate concerned on September
H   8, 1993.
                                        •
             NAVKIRANSINGHv. STATEOFPB.[KULDIP SINGH,J.]                     731

            So far as the kidnapping of the Shri Ranbir Singh Mansahia, advocate A
     from Bathinda is concerned, it is stated that a case FIR No. 169 dated
     September 12, 1991 was ret,~stered at police station Kotwali Bathinda
     regarding the kidnapping of the said advocate. ll is repeatedly stated in the
     reply filed by the State of Punjab that investigation was made by various
     officers from time to time to trace Shri Mansahia but with no success. It is B
     finally stated that on November, 11, 1992 Inspector Harmel Singh, CID,
     Patiala wrote summary report and recommended that untraced report be
     prepared in this case as no clue of Ranbir Singh Mansahia, advocate came
     to light during investigation. Untraced report was filed on December 26,
     1992 which was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on
     December 24, 1994.
                                                                                     c
           We are not satisfied with the reply filed by the State of Punjab. We
     are also not satisfied with the cryptic orders of the concerned Magistrates
     who accepted the untraced reports. We are of the view that it is necessary
     to have further investigation by an independent agency which is not under D

--   the influence of the Punjab police and other authorities responsible for the
     law and order in the State of Punjab. No citizens of this country much less
     the advocates who are protectors of human rights can be permitted to be
     kidnapped and eliminated in the manner it is alleged. In any case we are
     unable to accept the version of the State of Punjab that the State machinery E
     including the Punjab police is not in a position to trace the culprits
     responsible for the kidnapping of the advocates.

            We, therefore, direct the CBI to investigate the kidnapping of Jag-
     winder Singh and Ranbir Singh Mansahia, advocates and send a report to          F
     this Court within four months of the receipt of this order. Copy of this
     order along with copy of paper-book be sent to Director, CBI to appoint
     a senior officer to hold investigation/inquiry into the kidnapping of the two
     above mentioned advocates and submit a report to this Court within the
     specified time. We direct the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Director
     General of Police, Punjab, the Senior Superintendents of Police in the          G
     district concerned and the Punjab police in general to render all held and
     assistance to the CBI in conducting the investigations as directed by us.

           We are of the view that the State of Punjab must provide security to
     all those advocates who genuinely apprehend danger to their lives from H
      732                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995J SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A     militants/anti social elements in the State of Punjab. If the request for
    - security is recommended by the district Judge of the district or the
      Registrar of the High Court it may be treated as genuine and the State
      Government may consider the same sympathetically.

               The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The Registry to
B place the report of the CBI before the Court as and when received.

      v.s.s.                                                  Petition disposed of.