The court clarified the limitations on the court's powers to direct the investigating agency and emphasized the duty of the judiciary to uphold the freedom of the press and the role of newspapers in advancing the public interest.

SREEDHARAN, J.

'Niyamavedi', claiming itself to be a public spirited organisation consisting of lawyers, represented by one of its members Miss K. Nandini, Advocate, moved this Court by filing O.P. 17367 of 1994 inter-alia praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent, the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi, to arrest first respondent - Raman Srivastava, I.P.S., Inspector General of Police, Southern Zone, Kerala State - for his alleged involvement in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. Petitioner also prayed for directing the State Government to place Sri. Raman Srivastava under suspension with immediate effect.

2. On the basis of the reports in the newspapers-Indian Express and Mathrubhoomi-petitioner contended that first respondent by utilising his official power had involved in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. According to the paper reports, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation and Joint Director of Intelligence Bureau interrogated one Fousiya in jail, who identified first respondent, who was popularly known in the spy racket as 'Brigadier Srivastava' from several others and that Sri. Vijayarama Rao, Director of Central Bureau of Investigation became convinced of the role of the first respondent in the espionage case on interrogation of the Maldivian women Mariam Rasheeda and Fousiya. But despite all these, according to the petitioner, conclusive prima-facie evidences, the Central Bureau of Investigation is reluctant to arrest the first respondent and remove him from service because of the high connections and contacts wielded by first respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that as per Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer should arrest any person who has been concerned with or against whom credible information has been received or a reasonable suspicion exists of his involvement in the commission of a cognizable offence. The failure to arrest first respondent by the Central Bureau of Investigation, it is alleged, is a naked violation of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On these averments petitioner moved O.P. 17367 of 1994.

3. When the petition came up for admission before learned Single Judge, he directed the Government Pleader to get instruction in the matter. On behalf of the State Government, learned Government Pleader placed before Court the instruction received by him from the Government. It stated :-

"The State Govt. make it clear that the Govt. have absolutely no interest in unduly defending or shielding any officer. The State Govt. have no material available before them at present which would point to the necessity of placing Sri. Srivastava under suspension. The Govt. can proceed in the matter only on a report from the C.B.I. which is investigating into the case". The learned Judge recorded the above stand taken by the Government and dismissed the Original Petition stating that it is for respondents 2 to 6 to act in accordance with law. Dissatisfied with the decision, the petitioner has come up in appeal.

4. This appeal came up for admission on 21-12-1994. On that day, learned counsel representing the Central Bureau of Investigation submitted that he wanted to get instruction from the Central Bureau of Investigation. So, the case was posted to 28-12-1994. On that day also, the learned counsel was not in a position to give any detail regarding the involvement of the first respondent in the I.S.R.O. espionage case. So, we directed the Central Bureau of Investigation to make available the records connected with the questioning of the first respondent before Court. We also wanted the officer who questioned first respondent to file affidavit. Pursuant to this direction, Sri. R. S. Dhankhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was in charge of the investigation of the case and Sri. Surinder Paul, another Deputy Superintendent of Police who questioned first respondent, filed affidavits. The affidavits filed by these of