Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35093
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
ADV.M.BAIJU NOEL – Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETATRY – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 1042/2024
ADV. M.BAIJU NOEL, SRI.SREELAL WARRIAR, SRI.T.A.SHAJI, SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SRI.SAJJU.S.
The court emphasized the necessity for thorough investigations in cases involving public figures, particularly when allegations of disrespect to the Constitution are made, mandating oversight by superior agencies.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 - Section 2 - Writ petition challenging dismissal of further investigation into alleged disrespect to the Constitution - Court found the investigation inadequate and ordered further investigation by the State Crime Branch due to the accused's position as a Minister. (Paras 10, 12, 20, 22)
(B) Judicial Review - High Court's power to review the adequacy of investigations and the conclusions drawn by investigating officers is affirmed, especially when public interest is at stake. (Paras 12, 19)
(C) Investigating Officer's Duty - The investigating officer must ensure a fair investigation and cannot conclude without all relevant evidence, including forensic reports. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the final report of the police that dismissed allegations against a Minister for disrespecting the Constitution during a public speech. The speech was deemed disrespectful by the petitioner, who sought further investigation.
Findings of Court:
The investigation was found inadequate, lacking in thoroughness, and the Magistrate's acceptance of the final report was erroneous.
Issues: (i) Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226; (ii) Legitimacy of the dismissal of the petition for further investigation; (iii) Necessity for further investigation and the appropriate agency to conduct it.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive investigation, particularly given the serious nature of the allegations and the accused's status, which warranted oversight by a superior agency.
Result: Writ petition allowed; further investigation ordered by the State Crime Branch.
JUDGMENT
“Constitution is not a mere lawyers document, it is a vehicle of life and its spirit is always the spirit of age. If things go wrong in the new Constitution, the reason will not be that we had a bad Constitution, but what we will have to say is that Man was vile.” B.R Ambedkar’s above words of wisdom must ring in the mind of every Indian citizen who is bound to uphold the Constitution and its ideals. They have particular relevance while appreciating the controversy arising in the instant case.
2. Petitioner seeks for a direction to set aside the final report filed in Crime No. 600/2022 of Keezhvaipur Police Station. He also challenges an order dismissing his petition for further investigation into the above crime. A direction is also sought to entrust the re-investigation of the above crime with the Central Bureau of Investigation.
3. On 03.07.2022, Sri. Saji Cherian, the then Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture, Government of Kerala, while addressing a public function at Pathanamthitta made certain remarks which are alleged to be disrespectful and insulting to the Constitution of India . Several persons, including the petitioner, submitted written complaints to the police. However, when his complaint did not result in the registration of a crime, petitioner approached the jurisdictional Magistrate. Pursuant to a reference under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, FIR No.600/2022 of Keezhvaipur Police Station was registered alleging the commission of an offence under section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act').
4. According to the FIR, on 03.07.2022, the accused had, in a public function made a speech that “
ഇന❻യയിൽ ഏ്ᩢവുᨷ കൂടുതൽ ജന്ᨲളള ളകകൊ്ᩦയടയികകൊൻ പ്ᩢയിയ ഭരണഘടന ഇന❻യുടടതകൊയകൊണണ. ബയിടᨾഷണ കകൊരൻ പറഞ തയകൊറകൊകയി ളകകൊടു്ᩈ ഒരു ഭരണഘടന ഇന❻കകൊരൻ എഴുതയിവചണ അതണ ഈ രകൊജ❻്ᩈണ 75വർഷമകൊയയി നടപകൊᨪന. ഇന❻ൻ ഭരണഘടനയയിൽ മടതതരതതുᨷ, ജനകൊതയിപത❻ുᨷ എനയിവയുളട കൂളട കുനുᨷ, ളകകൊടചകുᨷ എനയി്ᨲളനളയകൊളക എഴുതയി ടചേർ്ᩈയിᨾമുണണ .” and thereby disrespected the Indian Constitution and thus committed an offence under section 2 of the Act.
(The literal translation of the above words is as follows: “India has the ideal Constitution to loot the maximum number of people. The Constitution prepared by the British was only written by an Indian. It has been implemented in this country for 75 years. It is written in the Indian Constitution that there will be secularism, democracy ‘Kuntham’
‘Kodachakram’.”).
5. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed 'dropping further proceedings' by concluding that the accused had no intention to disrespect the Constitution of India in his speech. On receipt of notice of the final report, petitioner filed Crl.M.P No.617/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla of to reject the report and to direct further investigation. The learned Magistrate by order dated 15.05.2023 dismissed the said petition after observing that though the pen drive and the CD containing the speech had been forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory, the investigating officer had recorded the statement of 39 witnesses and came to the conclusion that there was no disrespect shown to the Constitution and the circumstances do not warrant a further investigation into the said aspect. As mentioned earlier, the aforesaid order is also challenged.
6. Sri. M.Baiju Noel, the party-in-person, submitted that the words used by the accused in his speech amounted to absolute disrespect of the Constitution of India thereby violating the provisions of the Act. It was also submitted that the investigating officer did not have any material to conclude that the accused had no intention to disrespect the Constitution. The petitioner also questioned the hasty conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer. According to him, the final report was filed even before receiving the forensic report of the audio and video recordings of the speech. According to the petitioner, when a Minister of the State spec
