Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.DASARADHA RAMA REDDY
P.Nedumaran - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
Decided On : 06-14-93
The court examined the legality of the detention of nine crew members of a ship and the alleged disappearance of another individual, Kittu, in the context of international law, Indian penal law, and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
Fact of the Case:
The nine crew members were arrested after their ship, M.V. Yahata, was intercepted by the Indian Navy in Indian territorial waters. The ship was carrying a large quantity of explosives and was suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. Kittu, a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), was allegedly taken into custody by the Indian authorities but his whereabouts were unknown.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Indian Navy had the right to intercept M.V. Yahata in Indian territorial waters and that the crew members were subject to Indian law. The court also found that the F.I.R. against the crew members disclosed offenses under the TADA Act and other Indian laws. However, the court found no evidence that Kittu was in the custody of the Indian authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the Indian Navy had the right to intercept M.V. Yahata in Indian territorial waters. 2. Whether the crew members of M.V. Yahata were subject to Indian law. 3. Whether the F.I.R. against the crew members disclosed offenses under the TADA Act and other Indian laws. 4. Whether Kittu was in the custody of the Indian authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court found that the Indian Navy had the right to intercept M.V. Yahata in Indian territorial waters based on the following principles of international law: - Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles. - The freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by the Convention of the High Seas of 1958 and other rules of international law. - Every State is empowered to sail ships flying its flag on the high seas. - A warship of one State has the right to visit and inspect a foreign ship on the high seas if there is reasonable suspicion that the ship is engaged in piracy, slave trade, unauthorized broadcasting, or is without nationality. 2. The court found that the crew members of M.V. Yahata were subject to Indian law because the ship was in Indian territorial waters at the time of the interception. 3. The court found that the F.I.R. against the crew members disclosed offenses under the TADA Act and other Indian laws because the allegations in the F.I.R., if taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, constituted the offenses alleged. 4. The court found no evidence that Kittu was in the custody of the Indian authorities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, holding that the detention of the nine crew members was lawful and that there was no evidence that Kittu was in the custody of the Indian authorities.
( 1 ) THESE two Habeas Corpus applications are interconnected: facts alleged and questions of law arising for consideration also are common apart from the fact that the petitioner is the same and so, we are inclined to dispose of both the cases by this common judgment.
( 2 ) THE petitioner - Sri. P. Nedumaran - swears that he is a former member of the Tamilnadu Legislative Assembly and a supporter of the cause of the Sri. Lankan Tamils. He claims that the mother of Captain V. Jayachandran, one of the detenus, instructed him to file. W. P. No. 3792 of 1993 and the other detenus also instructed him through his counsel, Sri. S. Dorai Swamy, who interviewed them on 5-3-1993 at Visakhapatnam, to file the writ petition.
( 3 ) W. P. NO. 3792 of 1993 was filed for release of nine accused - (1) M/s. V. Jayachandran, (2 ). K. Satkunalingam, (3) V. Krishnamoorty, (4) K. Nayagan, (5) S. Sivarajan, (6) S, Indalingam, (7) A. Subhas Chandran, (8) S. Balakrishnan and (9) T. Mohan - against whom F. I. R was registered by the Harbour Police staton, Visakhapatnam in Crime No. 4 of 1993 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short the tada Act), Section 436 (437?) I. P. C. and Section 174 Cr. P. C. The F. I. R. is pending with the designated court (Sessions Judge) under the TADA Act and by virtue of the orders passed by the learned Judge, all of them are in judicial custody in the Central Jail, Visakhapatnam.
( 4 ) W. P. N. 3793 of 1993 was filed for production of Sadasivam Pillay Krishna kumar alias Kittu (hereinafter referred to as Kittu) before this court and to set him at liberty after declaring his arrest and detention as illegal and void.
( 5 ) TWO interlocutory applications also were filed in the two writ petitions praying for the immediate release of the nine detenus as well as Kittu on bail.
( 6 ) SEEKING identical reliefs, the petitioner has filed earlier two H. C. P. Nos. 132 of 1993 and 134 of 1993 in the Madras High Court. During the pendency of the above H. C. Ps. by an interlocutory order, the Madras High Court directed the deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation. , visakhapatnam to permit the counsel for the petitioner to interview the detenus on 5-3-1993 when they were in police custody in Visakhapatnam. Subsequently, the two H. C. Ps. were dismissed by a Division Bench of that court by a common order dated 10-3-1993 without going into the merits. H. C. P. No. 134 of 1993 was dismissed on grounds inter alia that the records are with the Sessions Court, visakhapatnam and so it would be more appropriate for the court in Andhra pradesh to consider the matter. H. C. P. Nc. 132 of 1993, which pertained to production of Kittu, was dismissed on the ground that records were common in both the cases and in the counter-affidavit, the stand taken by the respondents, was that at no point of time, Kittu was taken into custody.
( 7 ) IN W. P. No. 3792 of 1993, the first respondent is the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. , the second respondentis the secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and respondents 3 and 4 are the Deputy superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam and the Supreintendent of Police, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam respectively. In w. P. No. 3793 of 1993, besides the Union of India represented by the Secretary, ministry of Defence, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and the Deputy superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Visakhapatnam. The director-General of Police, Tamilnadu is shown as one of the respondents. The superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Visakhapatnam is not a respondent, presumably since there is no allegation that Kittu was lodged in the Central prison, Visakahapatnam.
( 8 ) IN the two affidavits filed by the petitioner in both the writ petitio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
