V S ACHUTHANANDAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Petition is filed by the then Leader of Opposition in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, who has sought to bring to the notice of this Court, "the deplorable state of affairs concerning the tragic fate of what is widely known as the ISRO Espionage Case', which has come up as an important and sensational matter for heated discussions on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on several occasions", and has sought "effective and adequate remedies, lest the image of the system of criminal investigation is blurred in the eye of the public and the public confidence reposed in concept of Rule of Law undermined in our democratic policy". He has set out the background and the facts and circumstances relating to Crime Nos. 225 and 246 of 1994 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station and has stated that the accused, who were questioned, had revealed the involvement of the 8th respondent, a high ranking police official in the State. But he was neither suspended nor arrested since the third respondent was of the opinion, that is unacceptable, that there were no materials to show his involvement in the case. He has also alleged that during the unscheduled visit of the then Prime Minister to Trivandrum he held closed door discussions with the 3rd respondent and soon afterwards the investigation was entrusted to me CBI with the consent of the State Government The 7th respondent, however, made a report about the investigation conducted by him and his subordinates and, made a recommendation regarding the future course of action. The CBI investigation commenced with effect from 3.12.1994. On 13.12.1994, 'Niyama Vedi', Kochi filed OP No. 17367 before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to arrest the 8th respondent for his alleged involvement in the espionage case and for his suspension. But the Original Petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of this court, whose decision was challenged in WA No. 1676 of 1994. The appeal was heard at length and finally the Division Bench dismissed it by judgment dated 7.1.1995, holding that it cannot direct the investigating officer to include a person as accused in a case pending investigation or to direct his arrest. But the decision contains certain observations regarding the conduct of the CBI officers, which the petitioner has summarised in Para.8 of the OP Against the decision of the Division Bench, SLP (Crl.) No. 942 of 1995 was filed before the Supreme Court by the 5th respondent and others, that was however dismissed by judgment dated 5.4.1995, with the observation that the adverse comments made against the CBI were premature and could have been avoided. Certain directions given to the 5th respondent regarding the investigation were also directed to be ignored. The Supreme Court however did not enter into the merits of the case or consider the correctness or otherwise of the findings of the Division Bench and agreed with the general view expressed that the investigating agency has to act in efficient and vigilant manner without being "pressurised". Copy of the judgment is Ext. P2. But allegedly the CBI did not pursue the investigation along proper lines, ignored important materials already made available and came to certain findings, that were unwarranted. Petitioner has referred to certain press reports marked as Exts.P3 and P4, to show the ramifications of the cases and the need for a full-fledged indepth investigation to nab the guilty. He has also pointed out that there are conflicting versions given by the CBI and the CIB in regard to several material aspects. He has alleged that there had been a conscious attempt by the CBI to "misdirect the course of investigation" in order to protect certain persons, who are well-connected. According to him, in view of the uncertain fate of the case, where serious issues have been involved, which will have a bearing upon the safety and security of the Nation, it is necessary to have a judicial probe to set at rest the apprehensions of the public. As per Ext. P5, he requested the 2nd respondent to appoint a Commission of Inquiry consisting of a sitting Judge of this Court for a judicial probe into the "ISRO espionage deal", that was, however, rejected by the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P6. According to him, appointment of a Commission of Inquiry is also necessary since reportedly the CBI has finalised a "closure report", that would soon be filed in the Court where the cases are pending and has referred to Ext. P7 report in this behalf. He has also raised certain other allegations against the CBI in Para.15 of the OP, which, it is unnecessary to set out here being not very relevant Ext. P6 is challenged and he has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2, -

(2.) Heard.

(3.) The cases referred to by the petitioner indeed had received wide media coverage. No doubt, the public are entitled to know the truth as far as it could be known. The CBI took over investigation with the consent of the State Government when it was in the hands of the local police with the CIB also in the picture, in view of the sensitive aspects involved, which reportedly had a bearing upon the National security. Indeed, it is not for this Court to examine the circumstances under which the investigation was entrusted to the CBI or whether there was justification for the same. Again this Court will not be justified now to examine the legality and propriety of the final report that the CBI has sought to file to put the lid on the cases. The said question would perhaps fall for consideration in separate proceedings if it becomes necessary to do so. As noticed already, the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the State Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry in terms of S.3 of the Commission of Inquiries Act Petitioner made a request in this behalf to the 2nd respondent as per Ext. P5, that was turned down as per Ext. P6, which has been challenged. No doubt, under S.3 of the Act,-