Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Malicious investigation – Indiscriminate arrest of scientist – Compensation – Allegation of 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 by the State Government to conduct re-investigation – Challenge to, by the appellant – Supreme Court quashed the order of reinvestigation 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 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 – 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 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 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
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 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 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 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 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 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] [72-D-H; 73-A; 75-A-B]
1.3 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 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, 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, 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]
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 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, 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] 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 ;
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
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.F. Marion v. Davis
– referred to.
217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.