S. Nambi Narayanan vs Siby Mathews & Others Etc.

2. The exposé of facts very succinctly put is that on 20.01.1994, Crime No.225/94 was registered at Vanchiyoor Police Station against Reason:

3. Mariam Rasheeda was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 21.10.1994. Her custody was obtained by the Police on 03.11.1994 and she was interrogated by Kerala Police and Intelligence Bureau (IB) officials. Allegedly, during interrogation, she made certain ‘confessions’ which led to the registration of Crime No. 246/1994, Vanchiyoor Police Station on 13.11.1994 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Official Secrets Acts, 1923, alleging that certain official secrets and documents of Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) had been leaked out by scientists of ISRO.

4. Another Maldivian National Fousiya Hasan along with Mariam Rasheeda was arrested in Crime No. 246/1994. On 15.11.1994, investigation of both the cases was taken over by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by one Mr. Siby Mathews, respondent no. 1 herein, who was the then D.I.G. Crime of Kerala Police. On 21.11.1994, Sri D. Sasikumaran, a scientist at ISRO, was arrested and on 30.11.1994, S. Nambi Narayanan, the appellant herein, was arrested 3 along with two other persons. Later, on 04.12.1994, consequent to the request of the Government of Kerala and the decision of the Government of India, the investigation was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the respondent no. 4 herein.

5. After the investigation, the CBI submitted a report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. stating that the evidence collected indicated that the allegations of espionage against the scientists at ISRO, including the appellant herein, were not proved and were found to be false. This report was accepted vide court’s order dated 02.05.1996 and all the accused were discharged.

6. That apart, in the said report, addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, the CBI, the respondent no. 4 herein, had categorically mentioned:-

7. The CBI in its report, as regards the role of the respondent no.1 herein, went on to state:-

8. On 27.06.1996, the State Government of Kerala, being dissatisfied with the CBI report, issued a notification withdrawing the earlier notification issued to entrust the matter to CBI and decided to conduct re-investigation of the case by the State Police. This notification for re-investigation was challenged by the appellant herein, before the High Court of Kerala, in O.P. No. 14248/1996-U but the notification was upheld by the High Court of Kerala vide order dated 27.11.1996.

11. Thereafter, one Rajasekharan Nair filed a writ petition, being W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010, before the Kerala High Court on the basis of the report filed by the CBI seeking directions for the State of Kerala to pass appropriate orders and take necessary action against the erring police officers for conducting a malicious investigation. In the meantime, the Government, by order dated 29.06.2011, decided not to take any disciplinary action against the members of the SIT (erring police officers). The relevant portion of the order of the State of Kerala dated 29.06.2011 reads as follows:-

12. W.P. (C) No. 8080 of 2010 was disposed of by the High Court having been rendered infructuous as the petitioner therein, Rajesekharan Nair, wanted to reserve his right to challenge the order issued by the Government. Despite insurmountable difficulties, the indomitable spirit of the appellant impelled him to file another writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 30918 of 2012, before the Kerala High Court. The learned Judge of the High Court of Kerala, considering the pleadings of 8 the parties and thereafter elaborately considering the matter, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 29.06.2011 passed by the State of Kerala whereby the Kerala Government had decided not to take any disciplinary action against the members of the SIT (erring police officers) and consequently remitted the matter to the State of Kerala, the respondent no. 2 herein, for reconsideration and passing further orders within three months. Though the learned single Judge left it open to the State of Kerala to decide on the course of action to be taken in the matter, yet it was categorically mentioned that the reconsideration of the matter should not just be a namesake which will make the administration of justice a mockery.

41. Resultantly, the appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.

..………………………….CJI.

September 14, 2018