SREEKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner complains that the 5th respondent Sub Inspector of Police took her to the Police Station in a nightgown, at 7 a.m. on 25.6.1990 at the instigation of one Parameswara Kurup. Though her mother protested, it is said that the Sub Inspector turned the Nelsons eye to the protestations, and took her away. Petitioners father made representations, Ext. P2 before the 3rd respondent Superintendent of Police and Ext.P3 before the Home Minister of the State. Protest was raised in other ways, too. To cut a long story short, thereafter petitioner has moved this court for an enquiry into the incident, preferably by a lady judge.

(2.) Government presumably acting on Ext. P3 appointed the Revenue Divisional Officer, Alleppey to hold an enquiry into the allegations. Assuming that the allegations are true, a fact finding enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer to enable the Government to decide on the further course of action should be sufficient. The full facts are not known yet. There is no justification in putting frills and embroidery around an incident of this nature to qualify it for a judicial enquiry. Counsel for petitioner did not rely on any principle or authority, to show that there is a right in the petitioner to get an enquiry instituted, much less a judicial enquiry. Nor, was he able to support the prayer for revoking the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer by reference to principle or precedent.

(3.) If a wrong is committed, it must be visited with consequences that law envisions. But, there is no justification for the demand, for a special procedure or to insist on an enquiry by a lady judge. An aggrieved person must avail of remedies that law provide, and cannot innovate his or her remedies. No bias or other legal incapacity is attributed to the Revenue Divisional Officer.