Holding

The Court held that the matter must be investigated by the CBI, rejecting the State's inquiry and ordering a proper investigation by a senior CBI officer.

Summary

The petitioner Munir Alam filed a writ under Article 32 after his son Nadeem Alam was killed by police firing near the Vice‑Chancellor's lodge of Aligarh Muslim University on the night of 1‑2 October 1996. He alleged that the police investigation was biased and incomplete, and sought a fair inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and exemplary damages. The Supreme Court first ordered an inquiry by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, whose report highlighted serious lapses in the police investigation. The State Government instead appointed a Chief Development Officer and a Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry, producing a report contrary to the judge’s findings; the Court rejected this report as not complying with its direction. Consequently, the Court directed the CBI, through a senior officer, to investigate the incident and, if necessary, file charges, while leaving the award of exemplary damages to the trial court. The petition was allowed and costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the police investigation into the fatal firing was fair and complied with the petitioner's constitutional rights under Article 32.
Whether the State Government's appointment of a Chief Development Officer and Superintendent of Police to conduct an inquiry satisfied the Supreme Court's direction for an independent agency investigation.
Whether a CBI investigation is the appropriate remedy under Article 32 in this circumstance.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemplary damages against the accused.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

police firingwrongful deathCBI investigationArticle 32exemplary damagesindependent inquiryAligarh Muslim Universityjudicial review

Judgment

SHRI MUNIR ALAM A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 7, 1999

[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND B
N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/e 32-Police firing in the vicinity of
the lodge of the Vice-Chancellor in which 20 years old son of the petitioner
was killed-Petitioner alleging unjustified and unprovoked firing by the C
police and investigation into it to have been conducted in a wholly slip shod
and a biased manner-Report submitted by Additional District and Sessions
Judge pointing lapses in the conduct of investigation-Subsequent direction
to the State Government to have the matter inquired by some Independent
Agency/Senior Officer-Instead of registering a case and getting investigated D
by an independent agency, Chief Development Officer and the Superintendent
of Police appointed to deconduct an enquiry-Their report which was
diametrically opposite to the findings of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, not accepted by the Court as no such report had been sought-Jn
view of the. report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, C.B.I. E
directed to hold an enquirylinvestigation-C.B.l. further directed to file a
challan after the investigations, if need be and in the event thereof, request
of the petitioner for award of exemplary damages to be decided by the Trial
Court.

Firing took place in the vicinity of the lodge of the Vice-Chancellor, F
Aligarh Muslim University on the night intervening 1st and 2nd October,
1996 in which the 20 years old son of the petitioner was killed. Not satisfied
with the investigation into the incident conducted by the Police, the father
of the deceased filed this writ petition in this court, inter-alia, praying that
fair investigation be got conducted into the incident through the C.B.I. G
On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the police, with a view

-· to cover_ up its act of commission of unjustified and unprovoked firing,
manipulated the record and filed a final report in the committal court. It was
further contended that the investigation into the incident of firing was
conducted in a wholly slip shod and a biased manner. H
1209
1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 2 S.C.R.

A Notice was issued and counter and rejoinder affidavits were filed
thereafter by the parties. Not being satisfied with reply, this count directed
-
the Sessions Judge, Aligarh to inquire into the matter himself or to get it
inquired by a competent officer, not below the rank of an Additional Sessions
Judge. The IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh was detailed
B to hold the enquiry. He submitted his report accordingly, bringing to light
the lapses in the conduct of the investigation. The said report was allowed
to be inspected by the parties.

Subsequently, this court directed the State Government to have the
matter inquired by some Independent Agency/Senior Officer Instead of
C registering a case and getting it investigated by an independent agency, in
the light of the report of the Additional District· and Sessions Judge, the
Under Secretary, Home (Police) directed the matter to be "enquired" into by
some senior officers. Thus, Senior Superintendent of Police and the District
Magistrate, Aligarh appointed Chief Development Officer, Aligarh and the
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh (Rural Area) as inquiry officers to inquire
D into the matter. A report was submitted thereto before this Court. The
findings recorded by the two officers in this report were diametrically
opposite to the findings recorded by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge. The said report was rejected by this Court as no such report had been
sought while that submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge
E was accepted.
Allowing the petition, this Court _.,.._

HELD: 1. After perusing the report of the IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge dated 26th November, 1998, which is hereby accepted, it is
considered necessary with a view to arrive at the truth, that the entire matter
F be got investigated through the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).
Director, C.B.I. is accordingly directed to hold an enquiry/ investigation into
the incident which occurred during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd
October, 1996 and into the related matters, keeping also in view the allegations
made in this writ petition. The investigation may be got conducted, by the
G Director C.B.I., through an officer, not below the rank of a Senior
Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). After the investigation is complete, the
C.B.I. shall proceed in accordance with law; In the event, the C.B. I. , after
investigation, finds that a challan is required to be filed against the culprits,
it shall do the needful before a competent court. The request of the petitioner
for award of exemplary dama:;,es to the family of the deceased, shall in that ~-

H event be decided by the trial court, after notice to the petitioner and the
MUNIR ALAM v. U.0.1. 1211
accused. (1215-D-H] A
2. Since, this Court was seized of the matter and had required the
Additional District and Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry, the State
Government could not have, after report of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge was submitted to this court, directed an enquiry by the two Officers
of the State Government. The submission of the counsel for the State B
Government that the State Government understood the oral directions of this
Court to have the matter investigated by an independent Agency/Senior
Officer to mean to get an 'enquiry' conducted by a committee of two Officers
is not impressive. The explanation is not acceptable and appears to be only
a 'cover up' attempt. How could direction of this Court to get the matter C
investigated by an independent agency/senior officer, be understood to imply
to get an enquiry conducted by Officers of the status of Chief Development
Officer and the Superintendent of Police (Rural)? The manner in which the
inquiry was got conducted by the State Government shows that the indulgence
shown by this Court to the State Government to have the matter investigated
by some independent agency etc. was misused. The State Government, it D
appears, tried to cloud the entire issue by getting an enquiry conducted by
those two officers and its action does not stand proper scrutiny. To say the
least, the manner in which the State has acted after the report was submitted
by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, does not reflect well and
appears to be an attempt to, once again, cover up the lapses pointed out by E
the Additional District and Sessions Judge. [1214-G-H; 1215-A-D]

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.)
No. 352 of 1997

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)
F
Imtiaz Ahmed, Nagma Imtiaz and A. Sharan for Petitioner.

T. Sridharan, T.A. Khan, A.S. Pundir and P. Parmeswaran for the
Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G
On the night intervening 1st and 2nd October, 1996, in the vicinity of
the Lodge of the Vice-Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University, firing took place
in which Nadeem Alam, 20 years old son of the petitioner was killed. A formal
report was filed by respondent No. (Proctor of the University) 3 on 2nd
October, 1996 which was incomplete and therefore, an additional report in H
1212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A continuation of the earlier report was also filed. In this petition, which has
been filed by the father of the deceased Nadeem Alam, it is alleged that the
police, with a view to cover up its act of commission of unjustified and
unprovoked firing, manipulated the record and filed a final report in the
committal court. According t<? the petitioner, the investigation into the incident
of firing was conducted in a wholly slip shod and a biased manner. The
B petitioner, has, therefore, inter-a/ia prayed in the petition that fair investigation
be got conducted into the incident through the C.B.I. and to punish the guilty
and award exemplary damages to the family of the deceased.

Notice was issued in the Writ Petition on 13th November, 1997. Counter
C and rejoinder were filed thereafter by the parties. Not being satisfied with
reply, on 16th March, 1998, a Bench of this Court, felt that for proper disposal
of the Writ Petition, the matter required to be inquired into by a competent
judicial officer. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh was directed
to inquire into the matter himself or to get it inquired by a competent officer,
not below the rank of an Additional Sessions Judge and to submit the report
D of inquiry to this Court within two months from the date of communication
of the order. The period of two months was, however, extended for time to
time to enable the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh,
who had been detailed to hold the inquiry, to submit his report.

E The .learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh, Sh.
S.K. Raturi, submitted his report on 26th November, 1998.

The learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge had heard
counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as those appearing on behalf of
Aligarh Muslim University, Administration and the Government of Uttar
F Pradesh. After recording evidence, the learned Inquiry Judge in his report
dated 26-11-1998 concluded as follows : -
"(a) that deceased Nadeem Alam received injuries in the incident
that took place near V.C. Lodge in the intervening night of I/2.10.96;

G (b) Investigating Officer of Crime No. 420/96 made no efforts to
find out facts as to how and under what circumstances body of the
deceased was transported to Azamgarh;

(c) that Panchayatnama prepared at Azamgarh (U.P.) under the
supervision of the then S.D.M. PW 14 Rajeev Agarwal is a doubtful
H document;
MUNIR ALAM v. U.0.1. 1213

(d) that injury report prepared by Dr. Salah Uddin at J.N. Medical A
" College, Hospital A.M.U. and post mortem report prepared by PW 4
Dr. G.C. Maurya & 2 others at District Hospital, Azamgarh are
contradictory to each other, hence, either of the report is false;

(e) that PW 2 Dr. Smt. Shaad Bano Ahmad, Proctor, A.M.U.
handed over two written reports at P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh on 2.10.96 B
in respect of incident that took place in the intervening night of I/
2.10.96 and about Nadeem's death. This is evident from G.D. Reprots
Nos. 20 and 24 dated 2.10.96 of P.S. Civil Lines, Aligarh, but police

- Civil Lines, Aligarh registered Crime No. 420/96 regarding Nadeem
Alam 's murder only on 17 .10.96 on the basis of a vague reported dated
16.10.96 sent by PW 2 Dr. Smt. Shaad Bano Ahmad, proctor, A.M.U.
c
(f) that the Investigating Officer of Crime No. 420/96 made no
efforts to record statements of injured students during investigation."

On 8th January, 1999, inspection of the report submitted by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge was permitted by the Court. The D
~ inspection was to be made by learned counsel for the parties.

On 16th January, 1999 Senior Superintendent of Police and the District
Magistrate, Aligarh appointed, Chief Development Officer, Aligarh and the
Superintendent of Police, Aligarh (Rural Area) as Inquiry Officers to inquire E
..... into the matter. The order made by the District Magistrate and the Senior
Superintendent of Police in that behalf reads as follows :

"In Writ Petition (Cr!.) No.352 of 1997 Munir Alam v. Union of
India & Ors. filed in the Hon'ble supreme Court at New Delhi, the
Hon 'ble Court has passed orders to have the related matter to be F
enquired by some independent Agency/Sr. Officer. The date 22.1.1999
is fixed in this writ petition and it has been required that the information
about the inquiring agency/Senior officers be submitted by 17.1.1999.

2. Shri H.N.L. Asthana, Under Secretary, Home (Police) Section 12

-
Govt. ofUttar Pradesh, Lucknow vide his Fax message No. SCC-6-12- G
99 dated 15 .1.1999 has directed the related matter relating to the above
Writ Petition to be enquired by some Senior officer in view of the
orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New Delhi.

3. The matter relating to the above Writ Petition relates to the
incident of firing in the night of dated 112.10.1996 in Aligarh Muslim H
I
1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A University Campus and relating to the death of one student named
Nadim Alam in the said incident.

Hence in compliance of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and the order of the Government, the Chief Development Officer,
Aligarh and the Superintendent of Police, Rural Area, Aligarh are
B hereby appointed as the Inquiry Officers in the above matter. Both
these Inquiry Officers shall jointly conduct the inquiry and would
ensure immediate submission of their Joint Inquiry Report."

A perusal of the above order shows that the Senior Superintendent of
Police as well as the District Magistrate were aware that this Court was seized
C of the case and that the report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge,
the irispection of which had been permitted by this Court on 8th January, 1999
had been submitted to this Court, The communication sent by Mr. A.S.
Pundir, learned Advocate on record for the State ofU.P., to the Home Secretary,
Government ofUttar Pradesh, on 8th January, 1999 shows that he had informed
D the Home Secretary that this Court had perused the report of inquiry submitted
by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Aligarh and had after examining
the same, adjourned the matter by two weeks to enable the State of Uttar
Pradesh "to have the matter inquired by some Independent Agency/Senior
Officer." Instead of registering a case and getting it investigated by an
independent agency, in the light of the report of the Additional District and
E Sessions Judge, the Under Secretary, Home (Police) on 15-1-1999 directed the
matter to be "enquired" into by some senior officers. The Chief Development
Officer and the Superintendent of Police were, therefore, appointed to
"enquire" into the incident and the related matters.

A report dated 12th April, 1999 of the Chief Development Officer, Aligarh
F and the Superintendent of Police, Rural Area has now been produced before
this Court. The findings recorded by the two officers in this report are
diametrically· opposite to the findings recorded by the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge. Since, no such report had been sought by this
Court from the State, we are not taking the same in consideration.
G
Since, this Court was seized of the matter and had required the Additional
District and Sessions Judge to hold an inquiry, we fail to understand how
the State Government could have, after the report of the Additional District
and Sessions Judge was submitted to this Court, directed an enquiry by the
two Officers of the State Government. The submission of learned counsel for
H the State Government that the State Government understood the oral directions
MUNIR ALAM v. U.0.1. 1215
of this Court to have the matter investigated by an independent Agency/ A
Senior Officer to mean to get an 'enquiry' conducted by a committee of two
Officers does not impress us. The explanation is not acceptable and appears
to be only a 'cover up' attempt. How could a direction of this Court to get
the matter investigated by an independent Agency/Senior Officer, be
understood to imply to get an enquiry conducted by Officers of the status
of Chief Development Officer and the Superintendent of Police (Rural)? The B
manner in which the inquiry was got conducted by the State Government
shows that the indulgence shown by this Court to the State Government to
have the matter investigated by some independent agency etc. was misused.
The State Government, it appears, tried to cloud the entire issue by getting
an enquiry conducted by those two officers and its action does not stand C
proper scrutiny. To say the least, the manner in which the State has acted after
the report was submitted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, does
not reflect well and appears to be an attempt to, once again, cover up the
lapses pointed out by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge. We
need not, at this stage say any thing more on this aspect of the matter.
D
After perusing the report of the learned IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge dated 26th November, 1998, which we hereby accept, we
consider it necessary with a view to arrive at the truth, that entire matter be
got investigated through the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.). We,
accordingly, direct the Director, C.B.I. to hold an enquiry/investigating into E
the incident which occurred during the intervening night of 1st and 2nd
October, 1996 and into the related matter, keeping also in view the allegations
made in this writ petition. The investigation may be got conducted. by the
Director C.B.I., through an officer, not below the rank of a Senior Superintendent
of Police (C.B.1.). After the investigation is complete, the C.B.I shall proceed
in accordance with law. F
The record, which has been sent by the IVth Additional District and
Sessions Judge, along with his report to this Court shall be sent to the
Director (C.B.I) . A copy of the writ petition together with other documents
including counters etc. shall also be forwarded to him to enable the
investigating officer of the C.B.I to conduct proper investigation. G
In the event, the C.B.l., after investigation, finds that a challan is
required to be filed against the culprits it shall do the needful before a
competent court. The request of the petitioner for award of exemplary damages
to the family of the deceased, shall in that event be decided by the trial court,
after notice to the petitioner and the accused. H
1216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A The Director, C.B.I. is requested to have the investigation carried out
expeditiously and as far as possible within four months from the date of this
order.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed with costs.

B M.P. Petition allowed.

/

•

.::