The procedure adopted by the police officers in the investigation of criminal cases against the petitioners was warranted by law and the employment of C.I.D. officials in the investigation of the cases against the petitioners was due to the special nature of the cases.

Judgment

S. K. DAS, J. : This is a writ petition. The three petitioners before us are (1) R. P. Kapur, a member of the Indian Civil Service, who before his suspension was serving as a Commissioner in the State of Punjab, (2) Sheila Kapur, his wife, and (3) Kaushalya Devi, his mother-in-law. They have moved this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution for the enforcement of their rights under Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which rights they say have been violated by the respondents who are the State of Punjab, Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister thereof, and certain officials, police, administrative and magisterial, who have been conducting, or are connected with, the investigation or inquiry against the petitioners. We shall refer to some of these officials later in this judgment in relation to the part which they have played or are playing in those criminal cases.

2. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 had the misfortune to incur the wrath of the Chief Minister of the State. It is alleged that the Chief Minister was annoyed with petitioner No. 1, because the latter did not show his readiness to give evidence for the prosecution in a case known as the Karnal Murder Case (later referred to as the Grewal case) in which one D. S. Grewal, then Superintendent of Police, Karnal, and some other police officials were, along with others, accused of some serious offenses. That case was transferred by this Court to a Special Judge, at Delhi, who commenced the trial sometime in May/June, 1959. Petitioner No. 1 was at the time Commissioner of Ambala, and he alleges that he was told by the Chief Minister that it was proposed to cite the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as prosecution witnesses in the said case and it would be in the fitness of things that petitioner No. 1 should also figure as a prosecution witness; to this suggestion petitioner No. 1 gave a somewhat dubious reply to the effect that his appearance as a prosecution witness might or might not help the prosecution. Another reason for the displeasure of the Chief Minister, as alleged in the petition, related to certain orders which petitioner No. 1 had passed as Commissioner, Patiala Division, in a revenue case known as the Sangrur case. We shall presently give more details of that case, but it is enough to state here that the allegation is that in that case petitioner No. 1 passed certain orders, involving the disposal of properties worth about Rs. 9 lacs. which were adverse to one Surinder Sing Kairon, son of the Chief Minister. It is stated that as a result of the displeasure which petitioner No. 1 had incurred for the two reasons mentioned above, a special procedure was adopted in the investigation of the criminal cases instituted against the petitioners; and some new cases were started through the instrumentality of the C. I. D. Police with a view to subject the petitioners to harassment and persecution. The substantial allegation, to quote the language of the petition, is that "a special procedure or rather a technique has been devised for circumventing the mandatory provisions of the law (meaning the Code of Criminal Procedure) as regards the petitioners, two of whom are ladies and who are being dragged about unnecessarily because they happen to be related to petitioner No. 1." It is stated that there has been a deliberate departure from the normal and legal procedure in the matter of institution and investigation of criminal cases against the petitioners - a departure said to be the result of "an evil eye and unequal hand" which the petitioners allege constitutes a denial of the right of equal protection of the laws guaranteed to them under Art. 14 of the Constitution. The special procedure or technique of which the petitioners complain is said to consist of several items, such as (1) entertainment of a criminal complaint personally by the Chief Minister; (2) institution of complaints by the C. I.