AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—For over a decade by now, the Government of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are at their wits"" end in catching a notorious
sandalwood smuggler by name Verappan, who appears to be ruling the roost as at present with his gang in the forests adjoining the two States.
The two Governments are striving every nerve to nab him by spending huge amounts in their efforts but incurring heavy loss of men and money. It
is said that he and his gang members have built up a fief of their own and been carrying on criminal and terrorist activities in their area. They have
killed thousands of elephants and extracted the tusks for illicit sale and indulged in large scale looting of forest wealth, particularly sandalwood, teak
wood and other valuable timber. The two governments have set up special task forces consisting of senior Police officials and others well known
for their efficiency. There have been several encounters and pitched battles between the police forces on the one hand and the smugglers on the
other, resulting in deaths and grievous injuries. According to the statistics furnished by the respondents, during the period of last ten years, 28
police Officers, 10 Forest Officers and 56 members of the Public were killed apart from 94 persons having been murdered by the smugglers. 44
cases have been registered between 1989 and 1994 in different police stations against Veerappan and his sides. According to the respondents 46
members of this gang died in encounters. Several articles have appeared in the newspapers and journals about Veerappan and his associates. In
fact one of them claimed to have had an interview with Veerappan himself in May, 1993. A few of them contained reports said to have been made
by the residents of the border villages complaining of excesses and atrocities by the police.
Whileso, the People''s Union for Civil Liberties, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as ""PUCL"") Claims to have been approached by 55
persons, both men and women, residing in Villages in and around Kolathur Panchayat Union of Mettur Taluk, Salem District. It is stated that they
came to Madras on 14-5-1993 and met the members of PUCL. They alleged that the police, in the course of their operations against Veerappan,
had been harassing them indiscriminately by beating up several of them and taking away their property or destroying the same. Women were said
to have been subjected to physical and verbal sexual abuses. Thereupon, the PUCL appointed a Fact Finding Team consisting of five members,
three of them being advocates and the remaining two being a trade-unionist and a student leader. The team is said to have visited several villages
on 17-5-1993 and Matheswaran Hills in Kollegal Taluk of Mysore District on 18-5-1993. According to the report of the said team, a copy of
which is produced along with the petition, the team met and spoke with affected people and their families, local community leaders, the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mettur Sub-Division, the Superintendent of Police, Salem and the District Collector, Salem. The report refers to the
details of Police assault as given by the people. According to the report, policemen from Karnataka raided the village of Mettupalaiyur on 28-4-
1993, 6-5-1993, 8-5-1993 and 10-5-1993, beat 16 of the Villagers, whose names are listed, and took away their goods. Names of six persons
said to have been arrested in the Village is also set out. Similar lists are given for the villages Kathiripatti, Ilakampatti and Naickenthanda. A List of
people arrested from other villages viz., Komarayanur, Kaveripuram, Melathanda, Chinnathanda, Karaikadu, Perumalkoil Natham and Veeranur
is also given. The report refers to the responses given by the police when the Fact Finding Team met the officials. The version of the Collector of
the District is set out. The report proceeds to refer to certain matters under the caption ""Background Information to Police Action in the Villages
on Karnataka-Tamil Nadu Border and ultimately sets out the conclusion as well as recommendation. Though the copy filed with the petition
appears to be a xerox copy of the report, it does not contain any signature. It bears the date 24-5-1993. The Writ petition was itself presented in
Court on that day. If the xerox copy is a copy of the original report submitted by the Fact Finding Team to the PUCL, it is not known how it does
not contain any signature of any member of the team.
The writ petition filed on 24-5-1993 as stated above, in support by an affidavit bearing the date 22-5-1993. The deponent of the affidavit is
petitioner by name K. Mancharan, describing himself as the General Secretary of PUCL. He was not one of the members of the Fact Finding
Team. It is not claimed in the affidavit that he visited any of the villages mentioned in the report. If the averments contained in his affidavit are based
on the contents of the aforesaid report, there is no explanation as to how he could have sworn to the affidavit two days prior to the submission of
the report. The affidavit does not refer to the source of knowledge of the deponent with reference to the matters set out therein. Though the
affidavit purports to be one based on personal knowledge, counsel for the petitioner in answer to a question put by the Court submitted that it was
based only on the report given by the Fact Finding Team to the PUCL. It is not know why no member of the Fact Finding Team has chosen to file
the affidavit in support of the petition. We find on a perusal of the report of the Fact Finding Team and the affidavit side by side, that some of the
matters mentioned in the affidavit do not find a place in the report. For example, in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit, certain abusive words are
attributed to Karnataka Policemen as used by them in the course of their atrocities against the particular persons mentioned in the two paragraphs.
But, they do not find a place in the report. The deponent''s source of knowledge therefore is not disclosed. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the members of the Fact Finding Team had their own notes. But, they are not produced before Court. According to the report, the
members of the Fact Finding Team fanned out into different villages and spoke to various people. Thus, it is clear that each member of the Team
claims to have interviewed different persons, who were not interviewed by the other members. Neither the report nor the affidavit discloses as to
which member of the Team visited which village or interviewed which person.
No doubt, this is not an adversary litigation and the petitioner is not seeking any relief for himself as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner. But, even in a Public Interest Litigation, in which the Court is called upon to investigate a matter and give directions to the States, it is the
duty of the party who approaches the Court to place all the materials gathered by that party, in order that the Court is convinced about the
necessity for taking action in the matter. If the person who moves the machinery of the Court by invoking its prerogative jurisdiction, has no axe to
grind, he should conduct the proceeding dispassionately with the only aim of placing the truth before Court. Such a person shall not behave like a
litigant who seeks relief for himself. In this case, an allegation is made in paragraph 12 of the affidavit that on 10-3-1993, four policemen came and
handed over the dead body of one Rangu to his wife Kaliammal and gave Rs. 500/- for funeral expenses. In the counter affidavit filed by the first
respondent on 30-8-1993 it is stated in paragraph 8.12 that the said Rangu was one of the persons killed on account of land mine explosion
organised by Veerappan''s gang near Palar Bridge in the jurisdiction of Karnataka State on 9-4-1993. In reply thereto, on 7-9-1993 by the then
General Secretary of the PUCL, who succeeded Mr. K. Manoharan, the former Secretary, in which it is categorically stated in paragraph 6 that
the dead body of Rangu was handed over to his wife Kaliammal on 10-3-1993 and it is most improbable and unlikely that the said Rangu was
killed on account of land mine explosion on 9-4-1994 as stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent. We ascertained from the counsel for
the petitioner that after the counter affidavit was filed by the first respondent, the petitioner could not contact the villagers mentioned in the affidavit
filed in support of the petition and in particular the said Kaliammal. Thus, the petitioner had no occasion to verify whether the averment made by
the first respondent in the counter affidavit was true or not. Yet, an assertion is made in the affidavit which is filed by the succeeding General
Secretary in reply to the counter affidavit without verification of the facts. That affidavit also reads as if the deponent has personal knowledge of the
matters stated therein. That affidavit also does not refer to any source of knowledge or the record from which the General Secretary got the
information. We took exception to the manner in which the said affidavit has been filed and called upon the deponent of the affidavit to explain. She
appeared before Court and tendered her apology and submitted that she filed the affidavit inadvertantly.
We are referring to this aspect of the matter only to point out that in public interest litigations it is necessary for the Court to satisfy itself that
there are materials to warrant action being taken by the Court and directions being given to the State. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has
herself referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sebastian M. Hongray Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . Referring to the practice
followed in the matter of habeas corpus petition, the Court said :-
When a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under Art. 32 of the Constitution is moved before the Court, ordinarily the Court would not issue ex
parte a writ of habeas corpus unless the urgency of the situation so demands or issuing of a notice of motion was likely to result in defeat of justice.
Further the Court will be reluctant to issue a writ of habeas corpus ex parte where the fact of detention may be controverted and it may become
necessary to investigate the facts. The normal practice is that when a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moved, the Court would direct a notice
to be served upon the respondent with a view to affording the respondents to file evidence in reply. If the facts alleged in the petition are
controverted by the respondents appearing in response to the notice by filing its evidence, the Court would proceed to investigate the facts to
determine whether there is substance in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (See Halsbury''s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Vol. II,
Paragraph 1482). If on investigation of facts, the Courts rejects the contention of the respondent and is satisfied that the respondent was
responsible for unauthorised and illegal detention of the person or persons in respect of whom the writ is sought, the court would issue a writ of
habeas corpus which would make it obligatory for the respondents to file a return"".
In this case in particular, a peculiar feature has to be remembered. In answer to a question put by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that no statement was recorded from any of the 55 villagers who are said to have gone over to Madras and met the members of PUCL
on May 14, 1993 or from any of the villagers whom the members of the Fact Finding Team interviewed in their respective places. Learned counsel
submitted that the villagers are afraid of giving statements as they feared that they would become targets of further attack by the policemen. This
cannot be correct, as according to the report as well as the affidavit filed in support of the petition, complaints were given by the concerned
villagers in the police stations, but they did not issue any receipt. If they were bold enough to give complaints openly in the police stations, they
would have certainly given statements to the members of the PUCL at least when they were in Madras on 14-5-1993. The PUCL has not taken
down the names or addresses of the 35 persons who came to Madras. It is highly doubtful whether a member of the PUCL or the Fact Finding
Committee would be able to identify the persons whom they met, if necessity arose therefor. The report of the Fact Finding Team itself states that
it is possible that acute poverty and desperation have driven the villagers to work for Veerappan, thought their involvement with the smuggling
operations existed on a very peripheral level. In another place in the report it is stated that :
It is important to recognise that this is an extremely backward and poverty-striken area and sheer survival needs have, in all likelihood, caused
villagers to work for Veerappan"".
In view of what is stated in the report, it is not unlikely that they are spreading a propaganda either voluntarily or under threat or force by
Veerappan and his gang against the policemen in order to earn the sympathy of the general public. It should not be forgotten that unless and until
Veerappan and his associates are put behind the bars, the allegations said to have been made by the people in the villages cannot be taken for
granted and there must be reliable and acceptable material before Court before any action is taken. It is not unlikely that attempts will be made by
some of the stooges of Veerappan to distract the attention of the police officials who are often (after) him and disturb their concentration by
spreading false information about them.
The prayer in this petition is for issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing the first respondent viz., DIG, Police Task Force, Karnataka to
produce the detenus whose names are set out in the annexure appended to the petition, to direct payment of suitable compensation to the said
detenus and to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings including disciplinary action against the police personnel responsible for
the illegal detention and harassment. The annexure to the petition contains names of 41 persons and their respective villages. The second
respondent is the State of Karnataka represented by Secretary to Government, Home Department and the third respondent is the Superintendent
of Police, Salem District, Salem. Though the prayer in the petition is confined to the 41 persons alleged to have been detained, the affidavit refers
to complaints of molestation of women, beating of several persons and abusing them in vulgar language. According to the affidavit, the third
respondent informed the Fact Finding Team that he had received certain complaints regarding illegal arrests and detentions and that he would be
taking steps to prevent such harassment and to redress the grievances of the villagers. An allegation is also made that when the Fact Finding Team
went to the Police Camp at Matheswaran Hills, they met Inspectors by name Aane Gowda and Nanjappa. The latter is said to have told them that
the Special Task Force had arrested all those associated with Veerappan and there was no system of producing such persons before a Magistrate
within 24 hours of their arrest in this stage. It is also alleged that he told them their law was different. According to the affidavit, there is violation of
Arts. 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
The third respondent filed his counter affidavit dated 21-7-1993. He has denied the allegation that complaints were given at Kolathur Police
Station, but the people in charge refused to register the same. He has categorically stated that no complaint was ever preferred in that station. He
has admitted having met the members of the PUCL, but he has stated that he assured them that action will be taken as and when specific
information or complaint is preferred at the Kolathur Police Station regarding any harassment by Special Task Force members of Karnataka.
According to the said affidavit on receipt of a copy of the writ affidavit, one Sub-Inspector of Police was deputed by the Superintendent of Police
to go to the camp of Karnataka Force at Matheswaran Hills and collect from them relevant materials regarding the alleged arrest and detention of
the persons mentioned in the writ affidavit. Six persons are said to have been arrested by the Karnataka police and five are said to have been
examined as witnesses, 23 persons are stated to be available in the villages and seven persons named therein are said to be not available.
The first respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the various allegations contained in the petitioner''s affidavit. Reference is made
to the four criminal cases in Crime Nos. 41/92, 70/92, 9/93 and 12/93 under investigation. Six persons are stated to have been arrested and
produced before the Designated Court at Mysore on the dates mentioned therein. Five persons are said to have been examined as witnesses, but
not arrested. It is asserted that excepting those persons admittedly arrested, none of the other 35 persons mentioned in the annexure was ever
arrested. Reference is also made to the encounter on 24-5-1993 when Veerappan and his gang members ambushed the convey of the three police
jeeps of Karnataka Task Force and attacked them. In that encounter, six police officers died and 7 police officers suffered bullet injuries. The
police jeeps were damaged. 8 persons belonging to Veerappan gang were killed. The Karnataka Force could not identify the names of those
persons were identified later (sic) are set out. Six of them were identified on 14-7-1993 and two on 7-8-1993. The affidavit states that enquiries
were made and it was found that none of the women mentioned in the affidavit of the petitioner were molested by the Karnataka police. It is also
averred that there are no Inspectors by name Aane Gowda and Nanjappa. The said counter affidavit was filed on 30-8-1993, though the date is
wrongly typed as 30th day of September, 1993. There is no dispute that it is a typographical error.
The Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Karnataka has filed a counter affidavit on 6-9-1993
requesting the Court to treat the counter affidavit of the first respondents as counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka also.
The first respondent filed a supplemental counter affidavit on 6-9-1993 explaining certain mistakes which had crept into the earlier counter
affidavit dated 30-8-1993, in the following words :-
The post of the Commander, Task Force is a newly created post and we are running the office temporarily at a camp situated in M.M. Hills.
There was hardly any time for me to prepare the counter affidavit. Because of the distance involved in between Bangalore and M.M. Hills and the
risks of ambush involved the journeys from M.M. Hills to Bangalore takes quite sometime. Due to the paucity of time one mistake has taken place
in the counter affidavit filed by me in the Honourable Court on 2-9-1993. I hereby request the Honourable Court to condone the mistake and
permit me to correct the same.
One of the persons said to have been arrested in the earlier affidavit by name Muthu Gounder had not been arrested but was only examined as a
witness. There was an omission of the name of Mani son of Irasappan, who was arrested and produced before the Designated Court. The date of
arrest with regard to three persons was wrongly mentioned as 1-6-1993, but it was 11-6-1993. The date of the affidavit was wrongly typed as
30th September, 1993 whereas it should be 30th August. Thus, the said counter affidavit explained the mistakes found in the earlier affidavit.
Thereafter, the General Secretary of the petitioner filed an affidavit in reply to the counter affidavits on 7-9-1993. We have already referred to
the same earlier and it is not necessary to mention the details therein. It is only a reiteration of the affidavit filed along with the petition. But, as
pointed out earlier, there was admittedly no verification of facts from the concerned villagers, after the filing of the counter affidavits.
In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the records relating to the persons admittedly arrested by the
police such as case diaries, F.I.Rs. and the records of the Designated Court should be produced before this Court. It was also submitted that the
inquest reports relating to those who died and records relating to the enquiries said to have been made by the police officials in the villages as
regards the molestation of women etc., should also be produced before this Court. It was also contended that there were material discrepancies
between the various counter affidavits filed by the respondents. The Additional Public Prosecutor has produced some of the records along with a
supplementary counter affidavit signed by the first respondent dated 4th February, 1994. Copies of some of them were furnished to the
petitioner''s counsel. With regard to others, the Additional Public Prosecutor contended that they cannot be disclosed to the petitioner or his
counsel, but they could be seen by the court. In the supplemental counter affidavit dated 4-2-1994 it is stated that there was no discrepancy in the
counter affidavits as contended by the petitioner''s counsel.
The main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that all the records required by her should be made available to her when only
the petitioner would be in a position to help the Court in ascertaining the truth. The discrepancies in the counter affidavits as listed by her would
prove that the respondents are not stating the truth and that this being a public interest litigation, the Court should ignore the mistakes found in the
petitioner''s affidavits and proceed to issue suitable directions to the respondents. It is also her case that the Court should find out whether proper
procedure is followed by the Designated Courts in Karnataka. In that connection it is submitted that it should be ascertained whether the accused
in those cases were apprised of their right to have legal advice.
In reply, the Additional Public Prosecutor contends that this Court shall not entertain any petition with reference to matters pending in Courts in
Karnataka and the petitioner has no right whatever to insist upon production of records mentioned above. It is also submitted by him that the
mistakes in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents have been properly explained and they are not material discrepancies which would
warrant the discrediting of their version. It is submitted by him that when the police forces are engaged in a difficult operation risking their lives, the
Court should not act upon some uncorroborated hearsay information said to have been gathered by a social action group. It is also submitted that
the State Government has been acting promptly in paying adequate compensation to the families of persons who were killed in the encounters and
to those who are injured. In short, his contention is that on the materials placed before the Court, there is no warrant for issuing any direction as
prayed for by the petitioner.
We have gone through the records placed before us by the respondents. It is seen therefrom that five persons (Serial Nos. 25, 26, 31, 40 and
41 in the Annexure to the petition) were arrested in Crime No. 70 of 1992, Ramapura Police Station and produced before the Designated Court.
Copies of orders remanding them to custody have been placed before us. Copies of applications for remand have also been given to us. We do
not find any irregularity or illegality on the face of record. Another set of five persons (Serial No. 5.10, 19, 23 and 32 in the Annexure) died in the
encounter on 24-5-1993 in M.M. Hills. Serial Nos. 1, 8, 12, 24, 27, 28 and 29 in the Annexure were examined as witnesses; but they were not
arrested. None of the remaining persons set out in the Annexure has been arrested. They are said to be present in the village. We are convinced
from the records placed before us that the respondents have only stated the truth and there is no reason to disbelieve them. With reference to one
Muthu son of Lakkampathiyan, Serial No. 18 in the Annexure, it is stated in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 4-2-1994 that he died in the
encounter on 24-5-1993. The Additional Public Prosecutor stated that it is a mistake and his name is wrongly typed in that paragraph. We accept
his statement. Excepting to point out one or two mistakes in the counter affidavits, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to
any material discrepancy; As regards the death of Rangu, husband of Kaliammal, referred to in paragraph 12 of the petitioner''s affidavit, to which
we have made a reference already, records have been produced before us to prove that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to her by way of
compensation even on 3-5-1993 by means of a cheque dated 1-5-1993. The receipt issued by her affixing her thumb impression in the presence
of the Village Administrative Officer has been produced before us. We find in the file produced by the Additional Public Prosecutor that similar
payments have been made to other persons by way of compensation for the death of the members of their families. On a perusal of the entire
records placed before us, we have no hesitation to hold that this is not a case warranting issue of directions as prayed for by the petitioner''s
counsel in the course of arguments.
The only prayer in the petition relates to the 41 persons mentioned in the Annexure thereto. The respondents have proved to our satisfaction
that there is no case of illegal detention of any of them; nor is there a case for directing payment of compensation to the said persons or initiation of
appropriate proceedings against police personnel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the following judgments of the Supreme Court rendered in Public Interest Litigation :-
People''s Union for Democratic Rights and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;
Sheela Barse Vs. State of Maharashtra, ;
Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;
Neeraja Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P., ;
Sheela Barse (II) and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;
Sheela Barse Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, ;
Pratul Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Orissa, ;
M.C. Mehta Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, ; and
Rajangam, Secretary, District Beedi Workers'' Union Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, .
In the view we have taken on the facts of this case, the above rulings have no relevance.
She has also referred to the judgments in Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , in support of her argument that it is the duty of the
Magistrate to inform the accused of his right to have legal advice and aid. She referred to Khatri and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and
contended that Sections 162 and 173 of the Criminal P.C. are not applicable to writ proceedings and documents which cannot be given to the
accused under those sections can be furnished to the petitioners in the writ petition. This decision is cited by her in answer to the contention of the
Additional Public Prosecutor that even the accused in a criminal case is not entitled to get certified copies of inquest report, statements recorded
under S. 164, Code of Criminal P.C., post-mortem certificate etc., before final report is forwarded to the Magistrate under S. 173(2) of the
Criminal P.C. by relying on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Selvanathan alias Raghavan v. State by Inspector of Police, 1988 LW
(Crl.) 503. As regards these contentions, we are of the view that it is not proper for this Court to direct the respondents to furnish copies of all
documents to the petitioner in view of the pendency of the criminal cases in the Courts of Karnataka. It is not for us to verify whether any
irregularity or illegality has occurred in those proceedings as alleged by the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the Additional Public Prosecutor,
the Principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, , in the following passage will apply (at page 905 of
AIR) :-
Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused
persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before
the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.
The same proposition is reiterated in Simranjit Singh Mann Vs. Union of India and another, .
Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab, and
Bhuwneshwar Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . The former case arose out of a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Criminal Appeals. It was found on the evidence that the accused, who were police officials, had caused the death of a person in custody. The
observations made by the Court in that judgment against the police officers cannot be torn out of the context and used in every case. That ruling
has no relevance in this case. The latter case arose out a writ petition filed by the appellant who was a sepoy in the Indian Army and dismissed
from service and also sentneed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. The High Court while upholding the order of dismissal, granted
compensation in a sum of Rs. 1000/- for illegal detention for a period of more than three months prior to the trial. The Supreme Court while
affirming the judgment of the High Court in other respects, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 30,000/- from Rs. 1,000/-. That is also not a case of
public interest litigation. The ruling has no relevance in the present case. If there is any illegal detention of any of the arrested persons, it is open to
them to move the appropriate court for appropriate reliefs.
In the result, we find that there is no merit in this petition and it has to suffer a dismissal. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed; but there will be
no order as to costs.
Petition dismissed.