IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 W.P.(C).No.36625 of 2007(S) --------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------- PEOPLE'S COUNCIL FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT T.ASAF ALI, ADVOCATE, PLEASANT CHATEAU, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY-670 101, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF LAW, NEW DELHI. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R4 BY ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.36625 of 2007-S ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu,C.J. A public spirited citizen is before this Court, inter alia, calling in question the legality or otherwise of the Kerala Police (Amendment) Act, 2007. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid amendment, which has been brought in to the provisions of the Kerala Police Act, is contrary to the observations made by the apex Court in the case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 1]. 2. When the matter was posted before the Court, we had directed Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned Government Advocate, to seek appropriate instructions from the State Government. 3. Today, the learned Government Advocate has produced before us the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Cont.Petn.(C).No.92 of 2007, connected with Cont.Petn.(C).No.240 of 2007, dated 16.05.2008. 4. In the aforesaid contempt petition, the Supreme Court has issued the following directions: “As regards the implementation of the various directions made by this Court in judgment dated 22.9.2006 Justice K.T.Thomas, former retired Judge of this Court is suggested to be as Chairman of the Committee and two other persons, one of the choice of Justice Thomas and the other WP(C).No.36625 of 2007-S - 2 - as recommended by the Ministry of Home Affairs (incorporating various terms and conditions in the committee). The Committee may file the report by three months. Terms and conditions which are subject to the variation by the Committee are as under: 1. To examine the affidavits filed by the different States and the Union Territories in compliance to the Court's directions with reference to the ground realities. 2. Advise the Respondents wherever the implementation is falling short of the Court's orders, after considering the respondents' stated difficulties in implementation. 3. Bring to the notice of the Court any genuine problems the Respondents may be having in view of the specific conditions prevailing in a State or Union Territory. 4. Examine the new legislations enacted by different States regarding the police to see whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of this Hon'ble Court's directions. 5. Apprise the Court about unnecessary objections or delays on the part of any Respondent so that appropriate follow up action could be taken against that Respondent. 6. Submit a Status report on compliance to this Hon'ble Court every six months. xx xx xx xx”. 5. One such direction is, the Committee constituted by them shall examine the new legislations enacted by the different States regarding the police to see whether these are in compliance with the letter and spirit of the Honourable Court's directions. WP(C).No.36625 of 2007-S - 3 - 6. Since the issue that is posed by the petitioner in this writ petition would be examined by the Committee constituted by the Supreme Court, in our opinion, it may not be necessary for us, at this stage, to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition. 7. Placing on record the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, this writ petition is disposed of, for the present, as unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge