The Court held that when exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the procedure for state consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act is not mandatory. It affirmed the CBI's authority to investigate police misconduct and directed the matter to proceed to trial.

Judgment

MOHAN, J. :- The Special Leave Petition is directed against the order made in Cri. Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1988 before the High Court of Kerala. The respondent herein filed the said Cri. Misc. Petition against the officers of Cannanore Town Police and others alleging criminal assault on his printing press. In that petition he sought a direction to investigate into the matter by an impartial agency.

2. The short facts are Maniyeri Madhavan is a journalist and is the editor of newspaper by name Sudinam Evening Daily. He complained of an attack on person and property at the instance of the police officers of the State. The High Court in a writ petition filed by him considered it necessary that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, be directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner making a representation in that behalf. He approached this Court praying for an investigation by the C.B.I. This Court did not give the direction. However, a direction was given that instead of the Deputy Inspector General, Northern Range, Mr. M.G.A. Raman, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, would supervise the investigation. It was also directed that a case be registered on the basis of representation submitted by the petitioner to Mr. Raman and the investigation be completed within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of such representation. Pursuant to this order, the representation was made to Mr. Raman by the petitioner. Mr. Raman did not complete the investigation within the time frame. On 11-3-91 the Government of Kerala filed an application seeking extension of time and certain directions consequent upon Mr. Raman ceasing to be in charge of the investigation. At this stage, the petitioner moved this Court on 13-3-1992 praying that the earlier order entrusting the investigation to the State Police be withdrawn and the matter be investigated by the C.B.I. On 3-9-1992 this Court directed the Home Secretary to file an affidavit mentioning the stage of the investigation and also to specify the names of officers of the rank of Inspectors General of Police who could be entrusted with the investigation, if need arose. The Home Secretary ignored the order. He asked the Under Secretary to file an affidavit. This Court took serious notice of this and passed the following order (1992 AIR SCW 3342 at pp. 3344-45).

"We are afraid, in this case the concerned officers of the State seem to manifest a disturbing degree of indifference. We take serious note of these lapses. Apart from considering as to which agency should now investigate this serious offence alleged against the State Police by a journalist, we would also like the State Government to explain why Mr. Raman who was in the midst of the investigation, was relieved and sent on deputation without the orders of this Court. In the meanwhile, the principal accused, the Superintendent of Police, has been elevated as a Deputy Inspector General of Police. Mr. Raman himself will have to explain as to why he did not complete the investigation in time; allowed time to lapse - and according to the petitioner, of allowing evidence to be lost with ulterior motives and abandon the supervision of the investigation. These lapses in the investigation seem to lend credence to the grievance of the petitioner that Mr. Raman himself, being a State Police Officer, has not been able to distance himself from the interests of these accused of highhandedness against the petitioner. The Home Secretary will explain why he did not obey the orders of this Court dated 3-9-1992 which expressly directed him to file an affidavit.

We direct the Home Secretary, State of Kerala Mr. Raman the then Deputy Inspector General of Police (now working as the Vigilance Officer of the Hotel Corporation of India) and the Chief Secretary representing the State, to show-cause why action should not be taken against them for the lapses and omissions in obeying the orders of this Court. The Hom