Supreme Court of India
S. NAMBI NARAYANANversusSIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 822
- Decided
- 14 September 2018
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the malicious prosecution and unlawful arrest of the appellant violated Article 21, entitling him to compensation and necessitating a committee to investigate action against the responsible police officers.
Summary
The appellant, former ISRO scientist S. Nambi Narayanan, was arrested in 1994 on alleged espionage charges that were later found to be false by the CBI, leading to his discharge. He spent nearly fifty days in police custody, during which the Supreme Court found that the investigation by Kerala police was malicious, causing mental torture, humiliation, and violation of his right to life and dignity under Article 21. The Court held that the State’s re‑investigation order was mala fide and that the police officers could not escape accountability. Consequently, the Court directed the Kerala Government to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to the appellant and to constitute a committee headed by Justice D.K. Jain to recommend action against the erring officials. The appeals were allowed, overturning the High Court’s decision that no disciplinary action was required.
Issues considered
- The arrest and detention of the appellant violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
- Whether the State police’s investigation constituted malicious prosecution warranting compensation.
- Whether the State Government’s re‑investigation order was ultra vires and mala fide.
- Whether the State can be directed to pay monetary compensation as a public law remedy.
- Whether a committee should be constituted to take disciplinary action against the erring officials.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 173(2), s. 357
- Foreigners Act, 1946s. 14
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34
- Official Secrets Act, 1923s. 3, s. 4
Subjects
Article 21malicious prosecutionillegal arrestcompensationhuman rightspublic law remedypolice misconductISRO espionage caseconstitutional tortstate liability
Judgment
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 51 51
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN A
v.
SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 B
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Malicious investigation –
Indiscriminate arrest of scientist – Compensation – Allegation of
C
leakage of official secrets and documents of ISRO by scientists –
Arrest of appellant-scientist, alleging espionage against scientists
of 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 proved
and were false – All accused discharged – In view thereof, decision D
by the State Government to conduct re-investigation – Challenge
to, 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 that
E
no action to be taken against the officers who were held allegedly
responsible by CBI for appellant’s illegal arrest – On appeal, held:
When person is confined within four walls of a police station or
lock up, he suffers mental agony – There may not be infliction of
physical pain but definitely there is mental torture – Reputation of
an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity F
– Appellant was a successful scientist having national reputation –
Lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest and put the
appellant in police custody, made the appellant to undergo immense
humiliation, harassment and immeasurable anguish – His liberty
and dignity were jeopardized – Entire prosecution initiated by the
G
police was malicious – State police was dealing with an extremely
sensitive case and after arresting the appellant and others, the State,
on its own, transferred the case to CBI – Criminal law cannot be set
in motion without any basis, on some kind of fancy or notion –
Public law remedy warrants grant of compensation – Issuance of
H
51
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A direction to the State to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to the
appellant – Committee headed by former judge of Supreme Court
to be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring
officials.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
B HELD: 1.1 The appellant was arrested and he has suffered
custody for almost fifty days. His arrest has been seriously
criticized in the closure report of the CBI. From the report, the
harassment and mental torture faced by the appellant is obvious.
When person is confined within four walls of a police station or
C lock up, he suffers mental agony. There may not be infliction of
physical pain but definitely there is mental torture. Reputation of
an 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 was
D malicious and it has caused tremendous harassment and
immeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where the
accused is kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he is
found not guilty. The State police was dealing with an extremely
sensitive case and after arresting the appellant and some others,
the State, on its own, transferred the case to the Central Bureau
E of Investigation. After comprehensive enquiry, the closure report
was filed. The submission by the State of Kerala as well as by the
other respondents that the fault should be found with the CBI
but not with the State police, for it had transferred the case to the
CBI, is to be rejected. The criminal law was set in motion without
F any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kind
of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant which
are basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was taken
into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he
was compelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invites
the public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of
G the fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy.
It is because life commands self-respect and dignity. It can be
stated with certitude that the fundamental right of the appellant
under Article 21 has been gravely affected. [Para 31, 36]
H [72-D-H; 73-A; 75-A-B]
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 53
1.3 The appellant, a successful scientist having national A
reputation, has been compelled to undergo immense humiliation.
The lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest anyone
and put him in police custody has made the appellant to suffer
the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked when
psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human being
B
cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified
his self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the
public law remedy. A civil suit has been filed for grant of
compensation. That will not debar the constitutional court to grant
compensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannot
lose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, C
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 judgment
rendered by this Court in Chandrasekhar’s case, suitable
compensation has to be awarded, to compensate the suffering, D
anxiety and the treatment by which quintessence of life and liberty
under Art. 21 withers away. The State of Kerala is directed to pay
a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant,
within the stipulated period. It is clarified that the appellant, if so
advised, may proceed with the civil suit wherein he has claimed
more compensation. [Para 39] [76-F-G] E
1.5 It has been submitted that the grant of compensation is
not the solution in a case of the present nature; that the authorities
who have been responsible to cause such kind of harrowing effect
on the mind of the appellant should face the legal consequences;
and that a Committee should be constituted to take appropriate F
steps against the erring officials. Though the suggestion has been
strenuously opposed, yet this Court remain unimpressed by the
said oppugnation. The obtaining factual scenario calls for
constitution of a Committee to find out ways and means to take
appropriate steps against the erring officials. For the said purpose, G
a Committee is constituted which shall be headed by Justice D.K.
Jain, a former Judge of this Court. The Central Government and
the State Government are directed to nominate one officer each
so that apposite action can be taken. [Para 40] [76-H; 77-A-C]
H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Others
(1998) 5 SCC 223 : [1998] 3 SCR 72 ; Japani Sahoo
v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 :
[2007] 8 SCR 582 ; Punjab and Haryana High Court
Bar Association v. State of Punjab and Others
(1994) 1 SCC 616 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 915 ;
B
D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 :
[1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 ; Joginder Kumar v. State of
U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260 ; Kiran Bedi v.
Committee of Inquiry and Another (1989) 1 SCC 494 :
[1989] 1 SCR 20 ; Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla
C Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 : [2012] 7 SCR
607 ; Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of
Gujarat and Others (1991) 4 SCC 406 : [1991] 3 SCR
936 ; Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Others (2006)
3 SCC 178 : [2006] 2 SCR 67 ; Hardeep Singh v. State
of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 1 SCC 748 – referred to.
D
D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
E [1998] 3 SCR 72 referred to Para 9
[2007] 8 SCR 582 referred to Para 27
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 915 referred to Para 28
F [1996] 10 Suppl. SCR 284 referred to Para 32
(1994) 4 SCC 260 referred to Para 33
[1989] 1 SCR 20 referred to Para 34
[2012] 7 SCR 607 referred to Para 35
G
[1991] 3 SCR 936 referred to Para 36
[2006] 2 SCR 67 referred to Para 37
(2012) 1 SCC 748 referred to Para 38
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 55
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6637- A
6638 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the High
Court 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, Sudarshan B
Rajan, 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, Jishnu
M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Mukudan,
Ms. Nitya Nambiar, Chinmay Deshpande, Ms. Geet Ahuja, Venkita C
Subramoniam T. R., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DIPAK MISRA, CJI. 1.The appellant, a septuagenarian, a
former Scientist of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO),
has assailed the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the D
High Court of Kerala whereby it has overturned the decision of the
learned single Judge who had lancinated the order of the State
Government declining to take appropriate action against the police officers
on the grounds of delay and further remitted the matter to the
Government. To say the least, the delineation by the Division Bench is E
too 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 against
one Mariam Rasheeda, a Maldivian National, under Section 14 of the
Foreigners Act, 1946 and paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order. The F
investigation of the case was conducted by one S. Vijayan, the respondent
no. 6 herein, who was the then Inspector, Special Branch,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Mariam Rasheeda was arrested and sent to judicial custody on
21.10.1994. Her custody was obtained by the Police on 03.11.1994 and
G
she 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 Police
Station on 13.11.1994 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Official Secrets
Acts, 1923, alleging that certain official secrets and documents of Indian
H
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A 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,
investigation of both the cases was taken over by the Special Investigation
B Team (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, Sri
D. Sasikumaran, a scientist at ISRO, was arrested and on 30.11.1994,
S. Nambi Narayanan, the appellant herein, was arrested along with two
other persons. Later, on 04.12.1994, consequent to the request of the
Government of Kerala and the decision of the Government of India, the
C investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),
the respondent no. 4 herein.
5. After the investigation, the CBI submitted a report before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, under Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence collected indicated that the allegations
D of espionage against the scientists at ISRO, including the appellant herein,
were not proved and were found to be false. This report was accepted
vide 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, had
E categorically mentioned:-
“Notwithstanding the denial of the accused persons of their
complicity, meticulous, sustain and painstaking investigations were
launched by the CBI and every bit of information allegedly given
by the accused in their earlier statement to Kerala Police/IB about
F the places of meetings for purposes of espionage activities, the
possibility of passing on the drawing/documents of various
technologies, 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 respondent
G no.1 herein, went on to state:-
“I, Sh. Siby Mathew was heading the Special Investigation Team
and was, therefore, fully responsible for the conduct of investigation
in the aforesaid two cases. Investigation conducted by the CBI
has revealed that he did not take adequate steps either in regard
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 57
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
to the thorough interrogations of the accused persons by Kerala A
Police or the verification of the so called disclosure made by the
accused persons. In fact, he left the entire investigation to IB
surrendering his duties. He ordered indiscriminate arrest of the
ISRO scientist and others without adequate evidence being on
record. It stressed that neither Sh. Siby Mathew and his team
B
recovered any incriminating ISRO documents from the accused
persons nor any monies alleged to have been paid to the accused
persons by their foreign masters. It was unprofessional on his
part to have ordered indiscriminate arrest to top ISRO scientists
who played a key role in successful launching of satellite in the
space and thereby caused avoidable mental and physical agony C
to them. It is surprising that he did not take any steps at his own
level to conduct investigation on the points suggested by him. Since
Sh. Mathew was based at Trivandrum, there was no justification
for not having the searches conducted in the officials’ residential
premises of the accused Nambi Narayanan was arrested by the
D
Kerala Police on 30.11.1994.
Vi. Shri Siby Mathew and his team miserably failed even in
conducting verification of the records of Hotels viz., Hotel foret
Manor, Hotel Pankaj, Hotel Luciya, etc., which were located at
Trivandrum to ascertain the veracity of the statement of accused
persons…. E
The above facts are being brought to the notice of the competent
authority for their kind consideration and for such action as deemed
fit.
[Emphasis added] F
8. On 27.06.1996, the State Government of Kerala, being
dissatisfied with the CBI report, issued a notification withdrawing the
earlier notification issued to entrust the matter to CBI and decided to
conduct re-investigation of the case by the State Police. This notification
for re-investigation was challenged by the appellant herein, before the G
High Court of Kerala, in O.P. No. 14248/1996-U but the notification
was 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.
H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A This Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and others1 quashed
the notification of the State of Kerala for re-investigation holding that
the said notification was against good governance and consequently, all
accused were freed of charges. The observations of this Court read
thus:-
B “Even if we were to hold that State Government had the requisite
power and authority to issue the impugned notification, still the
same would be liable to be quashed on the ground of malafide
exercise of power. Eloquent proof thereof is furnished by the
following facts and circumstances as appearing on the record….”
C [Emphasis added]
10. Even after disposal of the case by this Court, the State of
Kerala did not take any action against the erring police officers. In the
year 2001, the National Human Rights Commission ordered a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as interim relief
D to the appellant, who had sought Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore
only) as damages. A division bench of the Kerala High Court, vide order
dated 07.09.2012, asked the Government to pay the interim relief of
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) within three weeks of the said
order.
E 11. Thereafter, one Rajasekharan Nair filed a writ petition, being
W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010, before the Kerala High Court on the basis
of the report filed by the CBI seeking directions for the State of Kerala
to pass appropriate orders and take necessary action against the erring
police officers for conducting a malicious investigation. In the meantime,
the Government, by order dated 29.06.2011, decided not to take any
F disciplinary action against the members of the SIT (erring police officers).
The relevant portion of the order of the State of Kerala dated 29.06.2011
reads as follows:-
“5) Both the CBI and the accused-discharged persons approached
the Hon’ble High Court against the action of Government of
G Kerala. However, the High Court upheld the action of the
Government. Against this the CBI and the accused – discharged
persons approached the Supreme Court through SLPs against
the action of Government of Kerala.
1
(1998) 5 SCC 223
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 59
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
6) In the meantime Government examined the case with reference A
to the views obtained form the State Police Chief on the
observation of the CBI along with the explanation of the officers
concerned. After examination it was decided to await the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
allowed the prayer of the CBI and the accused discharged persons
B
questioning the notification issued by the Government withdrawing
the consent given to the CBI to investigate into the espionage
case and also to “further investigate” the ISRO espionage case
and also directed to give Rs. 1 Lakh each to the accused appellants
as cost.
7) Government examined the matter with reference to the entire C
records of the case and in proper application of mind. It has been
found that neither the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court
who accepted the Final Report nor the Hon’ble Supreme Court
had issued any direction to take action against the investigating
officers viz :- Shri S. Vijayan, the then Inspector, Special Branch, D
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 to
the ISRO Espionage case.
8) In the circumstances, Government are of the view that it is not E
proper or legal to take disciplinary action against the officials for
the alleged lapses pointed out in the investigation report of the
CBI at this juncture, after the lapse of 15 years and therefore
Government decide that no disciplinary action need be taken
against the above officials for their alleged lapses in the
investigation of the ISRO Espionage case and it is ordered F
accordingly.”
12. W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Court
having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner therein, Rajesekharan
Nair, wanted to reserve his right to challenge the order issued by the
Government. Despite insurmountable difficulties, the indomitable spirit G
of 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 the
High Court of Kerala, considering the pleadings of the parties and
H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A thereafter elaborately considering the matter, allowed the writ petition
and quashed the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the State of Kerala
whereby the Kerala Government had decided not to take any disciplinary
action against the members of the SIT (erring police officers) and
consequently remitted the matter to the State of Kerala, the respondent
no. 2 herein, for reconsideration and passing further orders within three
B
months. Though the learned single Judge left it open to the State of
Kerala to decide on the course of action to be taken in the matter, yet it
was categorically mentioned that the reconsideration of the matter should
not just be a namesake which will make the administration of justice a
mockery.
C 13. Though the said decision of the learned single Judge was not
challenged by the State of Kerala, yet two private persons, being the
respondent nos. 1 and 5 herein, assailed the judgment before the Division
Bench in WA Nos. 1863 and 1959 of 2014. The Division Bench of the
High Court, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.03.2015,
D observed that the only question before the Government was whether
any disciplinary action was to be initiated against the officers who were
members of the SIT which conducted investigation for some days and
thereafter reported that the matter required to be investigated by the
CBI. The Division Bench opined that the factual finding or report
submitted by the CBI on 03.06.1996 in the matter could only be treated
E as an opinion expressed by the CBI which may be considered by the
Government. Further, the Division Bench left it to the Government to
consider or not to consider the opinion expressed by the CBI in its
aforesaid report for the purpose of taking disciplinary action.
14. The Division Bench also held that the Kerala Government’s
F decision of not taking action against the erring police officers of the SIT
was based on three specific findings, namely (i) the Government’s
examination of the case with reference to the views obtained from the
State Police Chief with respect to the observations of the CBI alongwith
the explanation of the erring police officers concerned, (ii) the absence
G of any direction by the Chief Judicial Magistrate who had accepted the
final report, and (iii) absence of any direction from the Supreme Court to
take action against the investigating officers. That apart, the Government
opined that it is not proper or legal to take disciplinary action against the
officers on the basis of CBI report after a lapse of fifteen years.
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 61
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
15. Be it noted, the Division Bench concluded by observing thus: A
“Therefore the three reasons mentioned in Ext.P2 clearly indicate
that the Government has examined the relevant matters for arriving
at the said decision. When a decision has been taken not to proceed
further with any disciplinary action, after considering such relevant
matters, the decision cannot be considered as unreasonable, unfair B
or arbitrary.”
And again:-
“In fact, whether the accused were tortured or not is a disputed
question of fact. Further no such complaint was raised by the
accused. When the fact being so and since the petitioner having C
already approached the National Human Rights Commission and
the Civil Court, it is for the said agencies to arrive at a proper
finding regarding such disputed facts.”
The said order is the subject matter of assail before this Court in
these appeals. D
16. It is urged by the appellant that the prosecution launched against
him by the Kerala police was malicious on account of two reasons, the
first being that the said prosecution had a catastrophic effect on his
service career as a leading and renowned scientist at ISRO thereby
smothering his career, life span, savings, honour, academic work as well E
as self-esteem and consequently resulting in total devastation of the peace
of his entire family which is an ineffaceable individual loss, and the second,
the irreparable and irremediable loss and setback caused to the
technological advancement in Space Research in India.
17. It has also been contended that the CBI, to whom the F
investigation of the case against the appellant was transferred, after a
thorough investigation for about eighteen months, filed a comprehensive
and exhaustive report wherein it had recommended that the case against
the appellant be closed as the allegations against the appellant are totally
unsubstantiated.
G
18. The appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the
fact that the CBI in the said report had also highlighted several omissions
and commissions on the part of the Kerala Police Officers while
investigating the case against the appellant. That apart, the CBI, in its
H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A report submitted to the Kerala Government, had recommended that action
be taken against the erring police officers for serious lapses in the
discharge of their duties. The appellant has, in his submissions, expressed
his agony over the fact that the State Government, instead of acting
upon the recommendations made by the CBI and taking appropriate
action against the erring police officers, focused its entire attention on
B
taking further action on the investigation against the appellant and hastened
to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) through a notification
which was challenged before the High Court.
19. The appellant has further highlighted that this Court had earlier
opined about the malicious prosecution launched against him. Reliance
C has been placed on the criticism advanced by the NHRC against the
State Government. Learned senior counsel has urged with anguish that
the High Court has fallen into grave error by sustaining the order of the
Government and remaining oblivious to the plight of the appellant. It is
his further submission that the appellant should be granted compensation
D by taking recourse to the principle of constitutional tort and a committee
be constituted to take appropriate action against the officers who had
played with the life and liberty of a man of great reputation.
20. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that
the contention of the appellant that if he had not been falsely implicated,
E he would have made a huge difference in the cryogenic technology and
thereby contributed immensely to the Nation is untenable as it is an
admitted fact that he had submitted his VRS on 01.11.1994 immediately
after the arrest of Mariam Rasheeda, and on the very same day, his
resignation was accepted by the Superior Officer. It is pointed out that
the claim of significant contribution to the Nation is being put forth by
F appellant only to gain the sympathy of the Court.
21. It is further canvassed that the entire investigation of the case
against the appellant was carried out under close supervision of the then
Director General of Police (Intelligence) & Director General of Police
(Law and Order) and daily reports were sent to them during the course
G of the investigation. It has also been highlighted that on the day of arrest
of the appellant, the respondent no. 1 had submitted a report to the DGP
requesting entrusting of the matter to the CBI which is a clear indication
of the fact that there was no mala fide on the part of the said respondent
no. 1 and other officials of the Kerala Police. The respondent no. 1 has
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 63
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
contended that the entire gamut of facts reveals that he and other officials A
had performed their duties with full responsibility and the evidence on
record and the statements of other accused had clearly shown the
involvement of the accused persons in the activities of espionage.
22. The respondent no. 1, in order to substantiate his claim that
the appellant and the other accused persons were never subjected to B
any torture by the respondent no. 1 or other police officers, seeks to
draw the attention of the Court to the findings of a Division Bench of the
High Court which had dealt with a writ petition filed when the investigation
was pending before the CBI. It is put forth on behalf of the respondent
no. 1 that he himself did not take any steps for thorough interrogation of
the accused and sent the same to the CBI and, hence, the argument that C
he was tortured by the State police was far from the truth. As per the
notification dated 20.01.1987 issued by the Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs, the Central Government conferred the powers of
Superintendent of Police on officers of the rank of Assistant Director of
the Intelligence Bureau and in the instant case, the IB had come into the D
picture 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 sufficient
evidence indicating the involvement of the appellant and it had also come
to the notice of the respondent no. 1 that the appellant, who had submitted E
his VRS, was intending to leave the country and in the light of the said
facts, the arrest of the appellant and other accused persons had become
necessary. Learned counsel would contend that the stand of the CBI
that no incriminating records had been recovered is unacceptable
inasmuch as the final report reveals that 235 documents were recovered
from the house of the accused persons and the reason for the same was F
an issue which required investigation.
24. Further, it is contended that the case had been investigated by
the respondent no. 1 only for 17 days and thereafter, it was the CBI that
carried out the investigation and, hence, the responsibility to apprise the
media fell on the CBI and not on the respondent no. 1. Various other G
aspects have been controverted to show the non-involvement of the
said respondent and the bona fide act on his part to transfer the case to
the CBI. To make allegations against the SIT after transfer of the case
to the CBI is unwarranted.
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A 25. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the
whole thrust of the argument of the appellant that he was subjected to
torture falls to the ground as the IB officials against whom the major
charges of torture had been levelled had not been made accountable for
the said action and, therefore, it would be discriminatory to hold the
respondent no. 1 and other police officers of Kerala accountable for the
B
alleged torture. That apart, it is urged that the learned single Judge of the
High Court had only remanded the matter to the State Government for
fresh consideration and had not given any finding on the allegation of
torture and the respondent no. 1 had also contended that the appellant
never raised any allegations of torture before the CJM Court. Further, it
C is argued that the appellant was in custody of Kerala police only for 5
days, while the CBI had taken remand of the accused on three occasions
and had kept in custody for forty five days.
26. On behalf of the CBI, the fourth respondent, it is submitted
that inspite of highlighting several lapses and faults on the part of the
D police officials while carrying out investigation against the appellant and
other accused persons, the Kerala Government has failed to take any
action against the erring officials. It has been submitted that the reasons
given by the Kerala Government for not initiating any action against the
erring police officers, who had not only inflicted inhuman custodial torture
to the scientists of ISRO but also arrested them while they were working
E on a crucial space programme, was an unpardonable lapse. It is pointed
out that if the action of the Government of Kerala is not interfered with
on the ground of delay, it would tantamount to taking advantage of one’s
own wrong doing and further adding a premium to an unpardonable
fault.
F 27. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that
the conduct of the police officials is criminal in nature as per the
investigation and report submitted by the CBI and the investigation of
the CBI had clearly established that the investigation carried out by the
State police was full of lapses and also involved employment of illegal
G means such as criminal torture. The stand of the respondents is that the
report is recommendatory but it was incumbent upon the State of Kerala
to act upon the same as that would have reflected an apposite facet of
constitutional governance and respect for individual liberty and dignity.
Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 65
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
Sekhar Mohanty2, it is submitted that the State of Kerala could not A
take shelter of the doctrine of delay and laches. The erring conduct of
the police officers is of criminal nature and justice can be meted out to
the appellant only by taking appropriate action against the said officers
along with payment of compensation for the humiliation and disgrace
suffered by the victim.
B
28. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondent
no. 4 that investigation can be initiated to instill confidence in the public
mind. To buttress his stand, the decision in Punjab and Haryana High
Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab and others3 has been pressed
into service.
C
29. First, we shall advert to the aspect of grant of compensation.
From the analysis above, we are of the view that the appellant was
arrested and he has suffered custody for almost fifty days. His arrest
has been seriously criticized in the closure report of the CBI. The
comments contained in the report read as follows:-
D
“2. Consequent upon the request of Govt. of Kerala, the
investigation of Crime No 225/95 and No. 246/94 was entrusted
to 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)/94 E
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 registered on
3/12/94 in SIU. V Branch of CBl/SIC.II/New Delhi.
3. Immediately after the registration of the case, the
investigation was taken upon 4/12/94 and the police case files of F
both the cases were taken over. After investigation, a Chargesheet
in Case Crime no. 225.94 was filed on 17/12/94 against Mariam
Fasheeda. This case has ended in acquittal of accused Mariyam
Rasheeda vide Judgment dated 14.11.1995, passed by the Hon’ble
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cochin. G
4. The local police during the course of investigation of case
crime No. 225/94 had seized a Diary written in Dwivegi script
from accused Mariyam Rasheeda, the contents of which
2
(2007) 7 SCC 394
3
(1994) 1 SCC 616 H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A indicated that she was collecting informations about certain
Maldivian nationals based in Bangalore who were allegedly
planning a coup against the Govt. of Maldives. It was further
revealed that accused 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 period a number of
B
telephone calls were found to have been made from Room No.
205 to Tel. No. of D. Sasikumaran, a senior Scientist of Indian
Space Research Organisation, Valiamala. Accused Mariyam
Rasheeda while in Kerala Police custody in this case was
interrogated by Kerala Police and officials of Intelligence
C Bureau. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda allegedly made a statement
revealing the contacts of Fauziya Hassan and of one Zuheira, a
Maldivian national settled in Colombo with Mohiyuddin state to
be Pakistani national working as Assistant Manager, Habib Bank
in Male and Mazhar Khan, another Pak National. She also
allegedly disclosed that according to Fauziya Hassan,
D
D. Sasikumaran was friend of Zuheria. Based on the disclosures
allegedly made by accused Mariyam Rasheeda coupled with the
contents of her diary and the telephone contacts with
D. Sasikumaran, the instant case was registered on the suspicion
that she and Fauziya Hassan along with others were taking part
E in activities prejudicial to the sovereignty and integrity of India.
5. The investigation of crime No. 246/94 remained with
Special Branch only for two days and on 15.11.94, the
investigation was taken over by Special Investigation was taken
over by Special Investigation Team headed by Shri Siby Mathews,
F DIG (Crime), Trivandrum. During the course of investigation, the
Kerala Police/Crime branch arrested 6 accused persons on the
dates as shown below:-
i. Fauziya Hassan - 13.11:94
ii. Mariyam Fasheeda- 14.11.94
G
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
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 67
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
5. The search of the office room as well as residence of D. A
Sasikumaran at Space Application Centre, Ahemedabad, was
conducted on 21.11.94 and that of his office and residence at
Trivandrum on 30.11.94. The search of office as well as
residence of accused Chandrasekhar and S.K. Sharma, were
conducted on 21.11.94 at Bangalore. The house search of
B
Ms Sara Palani of Bangalore where accused Fauziya Hassan
was residing, was also conducted on 21.11.94. In addition, the
house seach of Shri. M.K. Govinadan Nair and Shri Mohana
Prasad, both senior Scientists of LPSC Valiamala, was also
conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered. The Crime
Branch also exdamined 27 witnesses but none of the witnesses C
stated anything which could throw any light about the alleged
espionage activities of the accused persons. The 7 witnesses of
Hotel Samrat, Tridandrum, proved the stay of accused Mariyam
Rahseeda and Fauziya Hassan in Room No. 205 in Hotel Samrat
from 19.9.94 to 20.10.94 and the visit of Sasikumaran to Hotel
D
Samarat to meet Mariyam Rasheeda. The witnesses of Hotel
Geeth, Trivandrum and that of Hotel Rock Holm, Trivandrum,
proved the visit of accused Sasikumaran alongwith Mariyam
Rasheeda to the said hotel on 10.10.94 and witjiMariyam Rasheeda
to the said hotel on 10.10.94 and 28.9.94, respectively.”
And again:- E
“10. Though no independent evidence has come on record during
the course of local Police/Crime branch investigation about the
alleged espionage activities of the accused persons, yet based on
the revelations allegedly made by the accused, the module that
emerged regarding the espionage activities was that accused F
Nambi Narayanan and Sasikumaran used to pass on documents
drawings of ISRO relating to Viking/Vikas Engine technology,
Cryogenic Engine technology and PSLV Flight Data/Drawings
and accused Chandersekhar, S.K. Sharma and Raman Srivastava,
the then IGP South Zone, Kerala passed on secrets of G
Aeronautical Defence Establishments, Bangalore. The documents/
drawings were allegedly passed on to Mohd. Aslam, a Pak nuclear
scientist and Mohd. Pasha/ahmed Pasha for monetory
considerations and that the amount running into lacs of US dollars
was received andshared by accused Sasikumaran, Chandrasekhar,
H
68 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A Nambi Narayanan and Shri Raman Srivastava and that
Mohiyuddin, Asstt. Manager of Habib Bank, Male, was one of
the persons who was financing the accused. Accused Fauziya
Hassan, zuheria, a Maldivian national settled in Colomobo,
Mr. Alexi Vassive of Glovkosmos, Russia, and Shri Raman
srivastava, worked as conduits. Some of the important meetings
B
which were held for espionage activities and in which the
documents were allegedly passed on for a consideration, were
held at International Hotel Madras on 24.5.1994, m Bangalore in
the mid September and on 23.9.94 at Hotel Luciya, Trivandrum,
in which some of the accused as well as said Zuheira and Shri
C Raman Srivastava, IGP, took part.
11. Immediately after taking over the investigation , by CBI,
all the 6 accused persons are thoroughly interrogated, taking the
statements purported to have been made by the accused before
the Kerala Police/IB, to be true, but all of them denied having
D indulged in any espionage activity. On being confronted with the
statements made by them before Kerala Police as well as IB
officials, the accused took the plea that the statements were made
on the suggested lines under duress. Though there was no
complaint either from ISRO or fromDE Bangalore about the loss
of any documents, the alleged revelations of the accused made
E before local Police/Intelligence officials were taken at their face
value and focused investigation was carried out to find out the
details and purposes of various visits of accused Mariyam
Rasheeda and Fauziya Hassan to India, their places of stay were
verified, the persons, including accused,, with whom they came in
F contact were examined and efforts are made to gather oral as
well as documentary evidence to find out whether the accused
have committed any acts which were prejudicial to the
sovereignty, integrity and security of the State and violative of the
Official Secrets Act, 1923
G x x x x x
“Accused Nambi Narayanan jointed Thumba Equotarial
Launching System on 12.9.1996 as Technical Assistant (Design)
and then from time to time he was promoted and was working as
Scientist-II since January 93. In system Project, Associates Project
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 69
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
Director GSLV and Project Director PS-II and PS-LV and was A
responsible for the organization and management of launch
vehicle system projects in LPSC.
x x x x x
32. During the investigation neither any evidence came on record
indicating that the accused indulged in espionage activities by way B
of passing on of secret documents of ISRO of any Defence
establishments nor any incriminating documents could be
recovered. Accused Mariyam Rasheeda has taken the stand that
she was to return to Male on 29.9.94 but could reach Trivandrum
Airport as she did not get any transport on account of the ‘bandh’. C
Subsequently, the Indian Airlines (lights were suspended on
account of plague scare and thus, she could not go. Since she
was going to complete stay of 90 days on 14.10.94, and to enable
her to stay beyond 90 days she required the permission of the
police authorities, she alongwith Fauziya Hassan visited office of
the Commissioner of Police and contacted Inspector Vijayan. She D
was advised by Inspector Vijayan to first obtain a confirmed ticket
for her return and then to approach for the extension of her stay.
Accordingly, she got one Indian Airlines ticket and one Air Lanka
ticket confirmed for her departure of 17.10.94 and approached
Inspector Vijayan. However, Inspector vijayan took ticket as well E
as her Passport and ultimately she was arrested on 20.10.94.
x x x x
38. As per the statement of accused Nambi Narayanan allegedly
made before Kerala Police, a deal for sale Viking/Vikas Engine
drawings was struck with Habibullah Khan for Rs. 1.5 crores. F
Two installments of the drawings were given to Rauziya at
Thampanoor ‘Bus Stand and Luciya Hotel and the third
installment was scheduled to be given on 5,12.94. Another deal
for transfer for Rocket Launch details of LPSC was finalized
with Fauziya Hassan and Ahemd Pash at hotel Fort Manor during G
February, 1993 for a consideration of USS 1.00 lakh and that on
11.10.94 he and Sasikumaran took Fauziya from Hotel Samrat to
a nearby dam and engaged in transfer of packets containing
Cryogenic technology.
H
70 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A The investigation revealed:-
(xiv) Investigation has established that the accused persons
including Rasheeda, Nambi Narayanan and Chandrasekhar were
harassed and physically abused. It is curious that while the IB
had all the six accused persons in their custody, they recorded the
B statements of only Sasikumaran, Chandrashekar, Fauziya and
Rasheeda and not of Nambi Narayanan and S.K.. Shanna. There
is reason to believe that the interrogators forced the accused
persons to make statements on suggested lines. The CBI seized
the personal diary of Chandrasekhar on 9.12.94. which contained
the details of his activities almost on day to day basis. If
C Chandrasekhar had made truthful disclosures to the Kerala
Police/IB interrogators, certainly they would have also
discovered the existence of his diary which did not support case
against him. He made disclosures before the CBI regarding the
existence of his diary which on analysis corroborates his version
D regarding his movements ex. Bangalore.
(xv) On the request of CBI, Director, LPSC had constituted a
Committee of experts of determine whether any documents were
found to be missing. The Committee gave a report to say that
only 254 documents were found to be missing which were
E random in nature and did not pertain to a particular system or sub
system. The Committee also noted that Vikas Engine was
released on the basis of the in-house drawings which were
prepared after modifying the SEP drawings and all the in-house
drawings were available and there was likely to be no impact of
some small number of missing documents. Similarly, all the 16.800
F sheets in the Fabrication Divn. where Sasikumaran was working
were found to be intact.
(xvi) Neither any incriminating documents of any money- Indian
or foreign have been recovered form the accused persons during
searches conducted by the Kerala Police and later by the CBI.
G The scrutiny of bank accounts also do not indicate anything
suspicious in this regard.
(xvii) It is reasonable to believe that if Rasheeda was involved in
any espionage activity regarding ISRO, she should have made a
mention thereof in her diary which is not the case.
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 71
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
114. During course of investigation, certain lapses were found on A
the part of earlier investigations/interrogators. The report is being
submitted that Government of Kerala/Govt. of India, separately
on these aspects.
115. So sum up, in view of the evidence on record, oral as well as
documentary, as discussed above, the allegations of espionage B
are not proved and have been found to be false. It is, therefore,
prayed that the report may kindly be accepted and the accused
discharged and permission be accorded to return the seized
documents to the concerned.”
From the aforesaid report, the harassment and mental torture faced C
by the appellant is obvious.
30. The report submitted by the CBI has been accepted by this
Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra). Dealing with the conclusion of
the report, this Court stated:-
“(iii) Though the investigation of the case centered round espionage D
activities in ISRO no complaint was made by it to that effect nor
did it raise any grievance on that score. On the contrary, from the
police report submitted by the CBI we find that several scientists
of this organisation were examined and from the statements made
by those officers the CBI drew the following conclusion: E
“The sum and substance of the aforesaid statements is that
ISRO does not have a system of classifying drawings/
documents. In other words, the documents/drawings are not
marked as Top Secret, Secret, Confidential or Classified etc.
Further, ISRO follows an open-door policy in regard to the
F
issue of documents to the scientists. Since ISRO is a
research-oriented organisation, any scientist wanting to study
any document is free to go to the Documentation Cell/Library
and study the documents. As regards the issue of documents
to various Divisions, the procedure was that only the copies
used to be issued to the various divisions on indent after duly G
entering the same in the Documentation Issue Registers. During
investigation, it has been revealed that various drawings running
into 16,800 sheets were issued to the Fabrication Division where
accused Sasi Kumaran was working, and after his transfer to
H
72 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A SAP, Ahmedabad on 7-11-1994, all the copies of the drawings
were found to be intact. Nambi Narayanan being a senior
scientist, though had access to the drawings, but at no stage
any drawings/documents were found to have been issued to
him. They have also stated that it was usual for scientists to
take the documents/drawings required for any meetings/
B
discussions to their houses for study purposes. In these
circumstances, the allegation that Nambi Narayanan and Sasi
Kumaran might have passed on the documents to a third party,
is found to be false.”
It further appears that at the instance of CBI, a Committee of
C senior scientists was constituted to ascertain whether any classified
documents of the organisation were stolen or found missing and
their report shows that there were no such missing documents.
There cannot, therefore, be any scope for further investigation in
respect of purported espionage activities in that organisation in
D respect of which only the Kerala Police would have jurisdiction to
investigate;
31. As stated earlier, the entire prosecution initiated by the State
police was malicious and it has caused tremendous harassment and
immeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where the accused
is kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he is found not guilty.
E The State police was dealing with an extremely sensitive case and after
arresting the appellant and some others, the State, on its own, transferred
the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. After comprehensive
enquiry, the closure report was filed. An argument has been advanced
by the learned counsel for the State of Kerala as well as by the other
F respondents that the fault should be found with the CBI but not with the
State police, for it had transferred the case to the CBI. The said
submission is to be noted only to be rejected. The criminal law was set
in motion without any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on
some kind of fancy or notion. The liberty and dignity of the appellant
which are basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was taken
G into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he was
compelled to face cynical abhorrence. This situation invites the public
law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of the fundamental
right envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. In such a situation,
H
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 73
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
it springs to life with immediacy. It is because life commands self-respect A
and dignity.
32. There has been some argument that there has been no
complaint with regard to custodial torture. When such an argument is
advanced, the concept of torture is viewed from a narrow perspective.
What really matters is what has been stated in D.K. Basu v. State of B
W.B.4. The Court in the said case, while dealing with the aspect of
torture, held:-
“10. ‘Torture’ has not been defined in the Constitution or in other
penal laws. ‘Torture’ of a human being by another human being is
essentially an instrument to impose the will of the ‘strong’ over C
the ‘weak’ by suffering. The word torture today has become
synonymous with the darker side of human civilisation.
‘Torture is a wound in the soul so painful that sometimes you
can almost touch it, but it is also so intangible that there is no
way to heal it. Torture is anguish squeezing in your chest, cold D
as ice and heavy as a stone, paralysing as sleep and dark as
the abyss. Torture is despair and fear and rage and hate. It is
a desire to kill and destroy including yourself.’
— Adriana P. Bartow
11. No violation of any one of the human rights has been the E
subject of so many conventions and declarations as ‘torture’ —
all aiming at total banning of it in all forms, but in spite of the
commitments made to eliminate torture, the fact remains that
torture is more widespread now than ever before. ‘Custodial
torture’ is a naked violation of human dignity and degradation which
F
destroys, to a very large extent, the individual personality. It is a
calculated assault on human dignity and whenever human dignity
is wounded, civilisation takes a step backward — flag of humanity
must on each such occasion fly half-mast.
12. In all custodial crimes what is of real concern is not only
infliction of body pain but the mental agony which a person G
undergoes within the four walls of police station or lock-up.
Whether it is physical assault or rape in police custody, the extent
of trauma, a person experiences is beyond the purview of law.”
4
(1997) 1 SCC 416 H
74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A 33. From the aforesaid, it is quite vivid that emphasis has been
laid on mental agony when a person is confined within the four walls of
a police station or lock up. There may not be infliction of physical pain
but definitely there is mental torment. In Joginder Kumar v. State of
U.P. and others5, the Court ruled:-
B “8. The horizon of human rights is expanding. At the same time,
the crime rate is also increasing. Of late, this Court has been
receiving complaints about violation of human rights because of
indiscriminate arrests. How are we to strike a balance between
the two?
C 9. A realistic approach should be made in this direction. The law
of arrest is one of balancing individual rights, liberties and privileges,
on the one hand, and individual duties, obligations and
responsibilities on the other; of weighing and balancing the rights,
liberties and privileges of the single individual and those of
individuals collectively; of simply deciding what is wanted and
D where to put the weight and the emphasis; of deciding which
comes first — the criminal or society, the law violator or the law
abider….”
34. In Kiran Bedi v.Committee of Inquiry and another6, this
Court reproduced an observation from the decision in D.F. Marion v.
E Davis7:-
“25. … ‘The right to the enjoyment of a private reputation,
unassailed by malicious slander is of ancient origin, and is necessary
to human society. A good reputation is an element of personal
security, and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right
F to the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property.’”
35. Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of his right
to life with dignity. In a different context, a two Judge Bench of this
Court in Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal8 has
observed:-
G
“55. … reputation which is not only the salt of life, but also the
purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life. It is
5
(1994) 4 SCC 260
6
(1989) 1 SCC 494
7
217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)
8
H (2012) 7 SCC 288
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 75
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
extremely delicate and a cherished value this side of the grave. It A
is a revenue generator for the present as well as for the posterity.”
36. From the aforesaid analysis, it can be stated with certitude
that the fundamental right of the appellant under Article 21 has been
gravely affected. In this context, we may refer with profit how this
Court had condemned the excessive use of force by the police. In B
Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat and others9, it
said:-
“39. The main objective of police is to apprehend offenders, to
investigate crimes and to prosecute them before the courts and
also to prevent commission of crime and above all to ensure law C
and order to protect the citizens’ life and property. The law enjoins
the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy
is to ensure fair investigation and fair trial to an offender. The
purpose and object of Magistracy and police are complementary
to each other. It is unfortunate that these objectives have remained
unfulfilled even after 40 years of our Constitution. Aberrations D
of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and
order situation have been subject of adverse comments from this
Court as well as from other courts but it has failed to have any
corrective effect on it. The police has power to arrest a person
even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The E
amplitude of this power casts an obligation on the police …
[and it] must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is
arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must
not be violated.”
37. If the obtaining factual matrix is adjudged on the aforesaid F
principles and parameters, there can be no scintilla of doubt that the
appellant, a successful scientist having national reputation, has been
compelled to undergo immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude of
the State police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has made
the appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked
when psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human being G
cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his
self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public law
remedy. We are absolutely conscious that a civil suit has been filed for
9
(1991) 4 SCC 406 H
76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 12 S.C.R.
A grant of compensation. That will not debar the constitutional court to
grant compensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannot
lose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, the
humiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant. In Sube Singh v.
State of Haryana and others10, the three-Judge Bench, after referring
to the earlier decisions, has opined:-
B
“38. It is thus now well settled that the award of compensation
against the State is an appropriate and effective remedy for redress
of an established infringement of a fundamental right under Article
21, by a public servant. The quantum of compensation will, however,
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of
C such compensation (by way of public law remedy) will not come
in the way of the aggrieved person claiming additional
compensation in a civil court, in the enforcement of the private
law remedy in tort, nor come in the way of the criminal court
ordering compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal
D Procedure.”
38. In Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh11, the Court
was dealing with the issue of delayed trial and the humiliation faced by
the appellant therein. A Division Bench of the High Court in intra-court
appeal had granted compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. This Court, while dealing
E with the quantum of compensation, highlighted the suffering and humiliation
caused to the appellant and enhanced the compensation.
39. In the instant case, keeping in view the report of the CBI and
the judgment rendered by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar (supra),
suitable compensation has to be awarded, without any trace of doubt, to
F compensate the suffering, anxiety and the treatment by which the
quintessence of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution withers
away. We think it appropriate to direct the State of Kerala to pay a sum
of Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation to the appellant and, accordingly,
it is so ordered. The said amount shall be paid within eight weeks by the
State. We hasten to clarify that the appellant, if so advised, may proceed
G with the civil suit wherein he has claimed more compensation. We have
not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit.
40. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellant and the
appellant who also appeared in person on certain occasions have submitted
10
(2006) 3 SCC 178
H 11
(2012) 1 SCC 748
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN v. SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS 77
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI]
that the grant of compensation is not the solution in a case of the present A
nature. It is urged by them that the authorities who have been responsible
to cause such kind of harrowing effect on the mind of the appellant
should face the legal consequences. It is suggested that a Committee
should be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring officials.
Though the suggestion has been strenuously opposed, yet we really remain
B
unimpressed by the said oppugnation. We think that the obtaining factual
scenario calls for constitution of a Committee to find out ways and means
to 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 State
Government are directed to nominate one officer each so that apposite C
action can be taken. The Committee shall meet at Delhi and function
from Delhi. However, it has option to hold meetings at appropriate place
in the State of Kerala. Justice D.K. Jain shall be the Chairman of the
Committee and the Central Government is directed to bear the costs
and provide perquisites as provided to a retired Judge when he heads a
D
committee. The Committee shall be provided with all logistical facilities
for the conduct of its business including the secretarial staff by the Central
Government.
41. Resultantly, the appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.
E
Nidhi Jain Appeals allowed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 21"Sign in to search