Madras High Court
K.Kathiresan vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 14 August, 2018
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T.Selvam
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 14.08.2018
RESERVED ON
:
31.07.2018
DELIVERED ON
:
14.08.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED
W.P.(MD) Nos.11391 of 2018, 11394, 11396,
11397, 11398, 11399, 11401, 11402, 11502,
11661, 12297, 13231 and 13417 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD) No.10382, 10383, 11543, 10389, 10390,
10391, 10392, 10393, 10394,
10398, 10479, 10480, 10481, 11178, 12064, 12223,
12224
and 12225 of 2018
W.P.(MD) No.11391 of 2018
K.Kathiresan
S/o.Karuppiah ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The State of Tamilnadu,
represented by the
Chief Secretary to Government,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The State of Tamilnadu,
represented by the
Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004.
4.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone, Madurai.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
7.The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
8.Mr.Kapilkumar Saratkar, I.P.S.,
Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
9.Mr.Mahendran,
Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District.
10.Mr.Venkatesh, I.A.S.,
The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Tuticorin District.
11.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Plot No.5 B, Lodhi Road,
CGO Complex, New Delhi ? 110 003. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing third respondent to
register a criminal case u/s.302 IPC (11 counts) against respondents 8 to 10
and others responsible for killing 11 and more innocent people staging
protest at Tuticorin on 22.05.2018 demanding permanent closure of Sterlite
Copper by deploying snipers in un uniform and shot dead the people on their
vital points without adhering the Police Standing Order and the laws and
rules governing the police firing and disbursing public gathering and to
order for a judicial probe headed by a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble High
Court of Madras and transfer all cases relating to the firing incidents to
the file of the eleventh respondent to investigate the case in accordance
with law under the direct monitoring of this Court by considering the
petitioner's e-mail representation dated 23.05.2018 addressed to the
respondents 1 to 3 within a time frame.
W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018
A.Rajini
Advocate,
No.93, Law Chambers,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Home Secretary,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o.Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Chennai.
3.The Director,
C.B.I., South Zone,
Chennai.
4.The District Collector,
O/o.The District Collector,
Tuticorin.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.The Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents (i) to order
for an independent enquiry by the 3rd respondent to probe the causes that led
to the police firing and excesses in Tuticorin on 22.05.2018; (ii) to direct
the District Judge, Tuticorin, to visit the Government Hospital, Tuticorin
and the High Ground Hospital, Tirunelveli and to file a report with regard to
the actual toll of death and with regard to the status of missing persons;
(iii) to immediately withdraw the police force from the residential
localities and stop indiscriminate arrest and torture; (iv) to immediately
shift the injured persons to Madurai and to provide adequate medical care;
(v) to ensure the supply of basic amenities like Milk, Rice, Dhall,
Electricity and other provisions and to ensure free mobility; and (vi) to
ensure the release of suspended Internet, Whatsapp and other information
related activities.
W.P.(MD) No.11396 of 2018
A.Syed Abdul Kader
S/o.Abdul Rasheedh ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented through
Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.State of Tamil Nadu,
represented through Home Secretary,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
O/o.Director General of Police,
No.1, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai.
4.The District Collector,
O/o.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.District Police Office,
Thoothukudi District.
6.The Dean,
O/o.Government Hospital,
Thoothukudi District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus permitting a team of Advocates and
Human Rights Activists to conduct a legal aid/fact finding at Thoothukudi and
its vicinity affected with regard to the above said incidents of sterlite
agitation on 22.05.2018 at Thoothukudi in a free and fair manner without any
interruption by the respondents 3, 4 and 5.
W.P.(MD) No.11397 of 2018
S.Muthukumar
Advocate
S/o.(Late) K.Sankaran,
Plot No.430, S.L.C.5,
L.I.G.Colony, Anna Nagar,
Madurai ? 625 020. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by the
Chief Secretary to Government,
Secretariat,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Health and Family Welfare Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai ? 600 009.
4.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Finance Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai ? 600 009.
5.The Director General of Police,
No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore,
Chennai ? 600 004.
6.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone, Madurai.
7.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
8.The Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
9.The District Collector cum District Magistrate,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin.
10.The Dean,
Government Medical College and Hospital,
Tuticorin District.
11.The Dean,
Government Rajaji Hospital,
Madurai ? 625 020. .. Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 and 10 to
shift and transfer all the injured persons including police personnel who
were injured in the Tuticorin sterlite protest on 22.05.2018 and on
subsequent dates by allowing the members of the Indian Redcross Society and
further direct the fourth respondent to accord financial sanction for the
above treatments within a time frame.
W.P.(MD) No.11398 of 2018
M.Alagarsamy
S/o.K.Manohar,
No.96/4, Sethu Palace,
1st Floor, Main Raod,
Kovilpatti,
Thoothukudi District. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Public and Home Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai.
2.The Director General of Police,
Beach Road, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
4.Mr.P.Muthu
The Sub-Inspector of Police,
Head Quarters,
Special Branch attached with
District Police Office,
Thoothukudi District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to
take appropriate and immediate action as against the fourth respondent
departmentally as well as under the criminal law in connection with his
intentional omission in making a true and real report of facts about the
procession that has been taken place on 22.05.2018 in connection with the
agitation against the functioning of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited,
Madurai Bye-Pass Road, T.V.Puram Post, Thoothukudi District, as expeditiously
as possible within the time frame.
W.P.(MD) No.11399 of 2018
C.Ezhilarasu,
S/o.A.Chandrasekaran
Deva Padmavathi Illam,
Mass Line, Melur Main Road,
Y.Othakadai,
Madurai District. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department,
Chennai.
2.The Secretary,
Broadcasting Ministry and
Information Department,
New Delhi.
3.The Secretary,
Tamil Nadu Broadcasting Department and
Information Department,
Secretariat, Chennai.
4.The District Collector,
Tuticorin District,
Tuticorin. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to take
appropriate action to restore the internet service among the Tuticorin,
Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli District for five days.
W.P.(MD) No.11401 of 2018
Kavin Malar
D/o.Jareen Kanthan ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Directorate of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the second
respondent's order dated 23.05.2018 vide Letter No.TS/329-1/2018 as illegal
and unconstitutional.
W.P.(MD) No.11402 of 2018
Kanimozhi Mathi
D/o.N.Mathivannan ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its
Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Home Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004.
4.The District Collector,
Collectorate,
Thoothukudi ? 628 101.
5.The Superintendent of Police,
Superintendent of Police Office,
Thoothukudi ? 628 101.
6.The Health Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
7.The Home Secretary,
Government of India,
New Delhi. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to form a
High Level Committee consisting of former Justices, efficient executives and
others whom this Court feels fit and direct them to visit the spot viz.,
Tuticorin and file the status report giving the details of death toll
immediately and direct them to mediate between General Public and Police
Force and help to bring peace by stopping gun shooting.
W.P.(MD) No.11502 of 2018
Kanthakumar
S/o.Ramakrishnan ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented by its
Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented by its
Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Home,
Secretariat, St.George Fort,
Chennai.
3.The Director General of Police,
Tamilnadu Police Department,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
5.The District Collector,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
6.The Dean,
Thoothukudi Medical College Hospital,
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
7.The Dean,
Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital,
Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing first respondent to probe
the untoward incident of using of firing arms by the police person and
shooting of 13 persons and brutal attack of the police persons towards the
general public in Tuticorin on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 by constituting a
High Level Commission consisting of retired Honourable Supreme Court Judge
ailing from Tamilnadu as a presiding member of the said Commission, two
retried Honourable High Court Judges of Madras High Court, a Member of State
Human Rights Commission, a Member from Tamilnadu State Women Commission, a
retired Police Officer not less than the cadre of DGP of Police in Tamilnadu,
a designated woman senior counsel in Tamilnadu who representing for woman
rights and any other person deemed to fit to be appointed as Members in the
said High Level Commission in total consisting of 9 members and to conclude
the said probe by the High Level Commission within a period of three months
and thereby directing the first respondent to file the report and
recommendation of the said High Level Commission before this Court.
W.P.(MD) No.11661 of 2018
N.Muthu Amuthanathan
General Secretary,
All India Lawyers Union,
Tamil Nadu State Committee,
4/412, College Street,
Tahsildar Nagar,
Madurai ? 625 020. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Union of India,
represented by its
Home Secretary,
North Block, Cabinet Secretariat,
Raisina Hill, New Delhi ? 110 001.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its
Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 9.
3.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 9.
4.The Director General of Police (Law and Order),
Santhome, Chennai ? 4.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
6.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
7.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
8.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi.
9.Sekar,
Special Deputy Tahsildar (Elections),
Office of the Tahsilar,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
10.M.Kannan,
Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Office of the Tahsildar,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
11.Chandran,
Deputy Tahsildar (Excise),
Thoothukudi.
[R9 to R11 are impleaded vide order
dated 06.06.2018 in W.M.P.(MD)
No.10985 of 2018] ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing first respondent to
register a case u/s.302 IPC r/w Arms Act against the second respondent in its
personal name and handover the said case to the Special Investigation Team as
formed and monitored by this Court.
W.P.(MD) No.12297 of 2018
Henry Thomas
S/o.E.R.Rajaiah
Door No.13/1, Vathiyar Street,
Thoothukudi ? 682 001. ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Director,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
2.The Superintendent,
Central Bureau of Investigation,
Chennai.
3.The Home Secretary,
Department of Home and Affairs,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
4.The Director General of Police,
Mylapore, Chennai.
5.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
6.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,
Tirunelveli Range,
Tirunelveli.
7.The Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
8.The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Thoothukudi District.
9.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing fourth respondent to
transfer the investigation/cases related to the shooting/encounter took place
on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 at Thoothukudi pending on the file of eighth
respodnent to the second respondent, further the second respondent may be
directed to investigate the involvement of police officials including the
District Administration, Thoothukudi and to monitor the same by the first
respondent till filing of final report before the competent Court based on my
representation dated 30.05.2018 within a time.
W.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2018
1.K.S.Arjunan
District Secretary,
Communist Party of India (Marxist),
No.16, Masilamanipuram 3rd Street,
Tuticorin District.
2.Maria Sesu Joelraja,
S/o.Leeston Fernando
3.M.Maharaj
S/o.Muthupandi
4.Poolpandi
S/o.Ganeshan
5.Sakthivel,
S/o.Chinnathambi
6.Karuppasamy
S/o.Veeraperumal
7.Muthukumar
S/o.Manthiramoorthy ..
Petitioners
- Vs -
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
represented by its
Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
O/o.Directorate of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,
Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004.
3.Central Bureau of Investigation,
represented by
The Joint Director,
3rd Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai,
Chennai ? 600 006.
4.The Additional Director General of Police,
CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
(Armed Reserve),
Tuticorin, Tuticorin District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to
register a FIR on the first petitioner's complaint dated 29.05.2018 and to
investigate into the same in accordance with law and to transfer the
investigation of the cases to third respondent pertaining to the death of 13
persons in Tuticorin town in the police firings on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018
to the third respondent.
W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018
AWD Tilak
S/o.Late V.Antonysamy Pillai ..
Petitioner
- Vs -
1.The Home Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home Department,
St.George Fort,
Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Director General of Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Road,
Mylapre, Chennai ? 600 004.
3.The Inspector General of Police,
South Zone,
Natham Road, Madurai ? 625 002.
4.The Chairman,
District Legal Services Authority,
District Court Buildings,
Thoothukudi ? 628 003.
5.The District Collector,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
6.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o.Superintendent of Police,
Thoothukudi District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
SIPCOT Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
8.The Inspector of Police,
Thoothukudi South Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
9.The Inspector of Police,
North Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
10.The Inspector of Police,
Central Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
11.The Inspector of Police,
Puthukotti Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
12.The Inspector of Police,
Puthiamputhur Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
13.The Inspector of Police,
Muthiahpuram Police Sation,
Thoothukudi District.
14.The Inspector of Police,
Sayarpuram Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ..
Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to arrest
the people illegally and issue strict orders to follow section 41A, 41B, 41C,
41D, 50, 54, 54A, 55, 55A, 56, 57 and 60A of Cr.P.C. and particularly the
judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [2014 (3) MLJ (Crl) 353
SC].
Appearance:
!For Petitioner:
W.P.(MD) No.11391 of 2018 : Mr.A.Kannan
W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018 : Mr.A.Rajini, Party-in-Person
W.P.(MD) No.11396 of 2018 : Mr.S.A.S.Alaudin
W.P.(MD) No.11397 of 2018 : Mr.A.Kannan
W.P.(MD) No.11398 of 2018 : Mr.R.Anand
W.P.(MD) No.11399 of 2018 : Mr.C.Ezhilarasu, Party-in-Person
W.P.(MD) No.11401 of 2018 : Mr.A.Suresh Sakthi Murugan Thanu
W.P.(MD) No.11402 of 2018 : Mrs.Kanimozhi Mathi, Party-in-Person
W.P.(MD) No.11502 of 2018 : Mr.P.Gurusamy
W.P.(MD) No.11661 of 2018 : Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan
W.P.(MD) No.12297 of 2018 : Mr.N.R.Elango, Senior Counsel
W.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2018 : Mr.L.Shaji Chellam
W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 : Mr.Henri Thipagne
^For Respondents:
W.P.(MD) Nos.11391, 11396, : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate
11397, 11398, 11399, 11401, General assisted by Mr.R.Sethuraman,
11402, 11502, 12297 and Special Government Pleader
13231 of 2018
W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018 : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate
General assisted by
Mr.R.Sethuraman,
Special Government Pleader
[R1, R2, R4 and R5]
Mr.V.Nagendran,
Special Public Prosecutor
(CBI Cases) [R3]
W.P.(MD) No.11661 of 2018 : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate
General assisted by
Mr.R.Sethuraman,
Special Government Pleader
[R1 to R8]
No appearance [R9 to R11]
W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 : Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate
General assisted by
Mr.R.Sethuraman,
Special Government Pleader
[R1 to R3, R5 to R14]
No appearance [R4]
:COMMON ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J] Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11391 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing third respondent to register a criminal case u/s.302 IPC (11 counts) against respondents 8 to 10 and others responsible for killing 11 and more innocent people staging protest at Tuticorin on 22.05.2018 demanding permanent closure of Sterlite Copper by deploying snipers in un uniform and shot dead the people on their vital points without adhering the Police Standing Order and the laws and rules governing the police firing and disbursing public gathering and to order for a judicial probe headed by a sitting Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and transfer all cases relating to the firing incidents to the file of the eleventh respondent to investigate the case in accordance with law under the direct monitoring of this Court by considering the petitioner's e-mail representation dated 23.05.2018 addressed to the respondents 1 to 3 within a time frame.
2. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents (i) to order for an independent enquiry by third respondent to probe the causes that led to the police firing and excesses in Tuticorin on 22.05.2018; (ii) to direct the District Judge, Tuticorin, to visit the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and the High Ground Hospital, Tirunelveli and to file a report with regard to the actual toll of death and with regard to the status of missing persons; (iii) to immediately withdraw the police force from the residential localities and stop indiscriminate arrest and torture; (iv) to immediately shift the injured persons to Madurai and to provide adequate medical care; (v) to ensure the supply of basic amenities like Milk, Rice, Dhall, Electricity and other provisions and to ensure free mobility; and (vi) to ensure the release of suspended Internet, Whatsapp and other information related activities.
3. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11396 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus permitting a team of Advocates and Human Rights Activists to conduct a legal aid/fact finding at Tuticorin and its vicinity affected with regard to the above said incidents of sterlite agitation on 22.05.2018 at Tuticorin in a free and fair manner without any interruption by the respondents 3, 4 and 5.
4. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11397 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 2 and 10 to shift and transfer all the injured persons including police personnel who were injured in the Tuticorin sterlite protest on 22.05.2018 and on subsequent dates by allowing the members of the Indian Red Cross Society and further direct the fourth respondent to accord financial sanction for the above treatments within a time frame.
5. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11398 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate and immediate action as against the fourth respondent departmentally as well as under the criminal law in connection with his intentional omission in making a true and real report of facts about the procession that has been taken place on 22.05.2018 in connection with the agitation against the functioning of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, Madurai Bye-Pass Road, T.V.Puram Post, Tuticorin District, as expeditiously as possible within the time frame.
6. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11399 of 2018 seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to take appropriate action to restore the internet service among the Tuticorin, Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli District for five days.
7. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11401 of 2018 seeks issuance of a Writ of Declaration declaring the second respondent's order dated 23.05.2018 vide Letter No.TS/329-1/2018 as illegal and unconstitutional.
8. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11402 of 2018 seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents to form a High Level Committee consisting of former Justices, efficient executives and others whom this Court feels fit and direct them to visit the spot viz., Tuticorin and file the status report giving the details of death toll immediately and direct them to mediate between General Public and Police Force and help to bring peace by stopping gun shooting.
9. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11502 of 2018 seeks for issuance directing first respondent to probe the untoward incident of using of firing arms by the police person and shooting of 13 persons and brutal attack of the police persons towards the general public in Tuticorin on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 by constituting a High Level Commission consisting of retired Honourable Supreme Court Judge ailing from Tamilnadu as a presiding member of the said Commission, two retried Honourable High Court Judges of Madras High Court, a Member of State Human Rights Commission, a Member from Tamilnadu State Women Commission, a retired Police Officer not less than the cadre of DGP of Police in Tamilnadu, a designated woman senior counsel in Tamilnadu who representing for woman rights and any other person deemed to fit to be appointed as Members in the said High Level Commission in total consisting of 9 members and to conclude the said probe by the High Level Commission within a period of three months and thereby directing the first respondent to file the report and recommendation of the said High Level Commission before this Court.
10. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11661 of 2018 seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing first respondent to register a case u/s.302 IPC r/w Arms Act against the second respondent in its personal name and handover the said case to the Special Investigation Team as formed and monitored by this Court.
11. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.12297 of 2018 seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing fourth respondent to transfer the investigation/cases related to the shooting/encounter took place on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 at Thoothukudi pending on the file of eighth respodnent to the second respondent, further the second respondent may be directed to investigate the involvement of police officials including the District Administration, Thoothukudi and to monitor the same by the first respondent till filing of final report before the competent Court based on my representation dated 30.05.2018 within a time.
12. Petitioners in W.P.(MD) No.13231 of 2018 seek for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent to register a FIR on the first petitioner's complaint dated 29.05.2018 and to investigate into the same in accordance with law and to transfer the investigation of the cases to third respondent pertaining to the death of 13 persons in Tuticorin town in the police firings on 22.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 to the third respondent.
13. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 seeks for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing respondents not to arrest the people illegally and issue strict orders to follow section 41A, 41B, 41C, 41D, 50, 54, 54A, 55, 55A, 56, 57 and 60A of Cr.P.C. and particularly the judgment rendered in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar [2014 (3) MLJ (Crl) 353 SC].
14. Heard learned counsel for petitioners in all Writ Petitions and Mr.K.Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Sethuraman, learned Special Government Pleader and Mr.V.Nagendran, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases.
15. Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 is the President of Thoothukudi Advocate Bar Association. He submits that on own initiative, a public inquest has been conducted. Learned counsel submitted that the case of police firing was one of murder. Protesters at Tuticorin had gathered and conducted themselves peacefully over a period of 99 days. They announced that they would meet the Collector on the 100th day i.e., 22.05.2018. For 99 days, no official visited the scene where protesters gathered. Suddenly, on the 100th day, police firing had been resorted to. The same was targeted at specific individuals as 9 of the 13 dead, were persons, who had participated in the protests throughout. Police shooting was a planned affair and, referring to the photographs in the typed set, learned counsel submitted that the same had been done from hiding. In one incident, a pillion rider on a two-wheeler was the marksman and in another, a sniper lying atop a police van and in another one standing atop a police van, had targeted and shot dead individuals. While the First Information Report in Crime No.191 of 2008 on the file of Tuticorin SIPCOT Police Station had been registered on the complaint of the Special Deputy Tahsildar (Election), Collector's Office, Tuticorin, none had been registered, not even u/s.174 Cr.P.C. in respect of deaths, which were the result of atrocity of the State.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11502 of 2018, referred to photographs to inform that the police had shot to kill, as the deceased had been shot in the face and chest. He submitted that it was necessary to form a High Level Committee comprising retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges to go into the issue. He also submitted that compensation paid to family members of the deceased family should be raised to Rs.50 lakhs.
17. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.12297 of 2018, submitted that Police Standing Order No.703 informed the procedure to be followed when police firing is resorted to. He submitted that in the Tuticorin firing of 22.05.2018, police had used self loading riffles. Such was weaponry, which was not to be used for firing on a mob. Use thereof was indicative of police firing being a premeditated affair. Learned counsel submits that acts of violence alleged against protesters were untrue and even this was premeditated. Referring to H.C.P.Nos.928 and 932 of 2018, learned senior counsel submitted that five cases had been registered for various offences against protesters and police men, both being investigated under one crime number. In H.C.P.No.928 of 2018, the defence of the police stood already informed in the First Information Report. Sekar, the Executive Magistrate, had ordered police firing. He exercised Executive Magistrate powers over six other areas but he claimed to have been at Tuticorin Collectorate, 6 kms away from his jurisdictional area and that he had been so present at the request of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was not superior to the Executive Magistrate. He claimed to have come along with the protesters and that as no local Executive Magistrate was present, he assumed powers of the Executive Magistrate of the area on his own and ordered firing. This position is reflected in his Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement in Crime No.191 of 2018 allegedly recorded on 23.05.2018.
18. Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code reads thus:
?79. Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law. ? Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.?
Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code does not protect one who acts wrongfully even if he does so on a mistaken understanding of the law.
19. Mr.Henri Tiphagne, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 submitted that on 20.05.2018, the District Administration had called for a District Peace Meeting. The District Superintendent of Police had chaired the same. The Sub-Collector was present. Significantly, the Collector/District Magistrate was absent. 23 organisations had been invited to partake in such meeting. Significantly, those now informed by the State as master minds behind the protest were not called. Therefore, by design, the administration has excluded certain persons. Orders in W.P.(MD) Nos.11190, 10218 and 10219 of 2018 towards promulgation of order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. was obtained at the hands of this Court not by chance. The order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. had been restricted to Thoothukudi South and SIPCOT Police Station limits. According to the State, protesters had come from 13 to 14 kms. away. Not a single barricade had been placed anywhere along the route taken by them. The protesters included women and children, who had walked from various parts, not covered under the order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. Nowhere along the way were they alerted of an order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. being in force in respect of the said two police station limits. The gates of the Collectorate had been kept open. There were 15 fire accident reports. The first alert on fire was received from Sterlite Employees Association and thereafter, from the Collectorate. Even today, it could be seen that excepting damage to a few windows no damage whatsoever had been caused at the Collectorate. Even the CCTV cameras therein were intact. In the Peace Committee Meeting, allegedly a decision was taken on gathering at SAV School Ground as an alternative to the Collectorate. Absolutely, no publicity of such decision had been made on the 20.05.2018 or thereafter.
20. The order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. allegedly had been made on 21.05.2018. Petitioner had moved two RTI applications seeking the same. However, the same was made available to petitioner only before this Court on 05.07.2018. Sterlite industries having moved the National Green Tribunal, was able to produce the same therebefore without any difficulty. What was made public was a press note. Sterlite industries, based on its representations of 09.04.2018 and 16.04.2018 had moved this Court in W.P.(MD) No.11190 of 2018 informing that a faction by name 'Makkal Athigaram' was distributing pamphlets and circulating messages on social media, provocative in nature and sought a direction for issuance of orders u/s.144 Cr.P.C. Orders were passed by this Court on 18.05.2018 directing the District Collector, Tuticorin, to consider the representations dated 09.04.2018 and its subsequent reminder dated 16.04.2018 ?on its own merits with due consideration in the observation made in this order and pass appropriate orders on or before 21.05.2018.? This Court had observed that the wordings in the pamphlets also indicate that the protesters do not have any intention to conduct a peaceful protest. None else other than the District Administration and police had been cited as respondents by the petitioner Company Vedanta Limited, which ran the unit Sterlite Copper. No opportunity, whatsoever, had been afforded to anybody to question or dispute the veracity of the alleged messages. Sterlite Industries and authorities of the State had acted collusively and obtained an order merely to raise a bogie of legitimate action.
21. In the face of violation of order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. preventive arrest could be resorted to towards avoiding untoward incidents. Such power hardly had been exercised in the case. Very many persons have been taken into custody from 23.05.2018. The National Human Rights Commission had visited on 02.06.2018. So to the State Human Rights Commission. The Judicial Commission of Enquiry appointed by the State was at Tuticorin between 2nd and 6th June 2018. 65 persons have informed that they were arrested on 22.05.2018 and they had suffered injuries. 39 of them were advocates. Their statements of having suffered injuries had been recorded by the Principal District Judge while granting bail. 32 juveniles had been held in illegal detention. So were several hundreds.
22. The sixth respondent Superintendent of Police had on 23.05.2018 stated that about 5000 persons were to be arrested. Very many FIRs had been registered. The website which gives access to FIRs had been blocked. In many cases, the offences informed attracted punishment of less than seven years. The decision of the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [2014 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 353 SC] required strict adherence to Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that the same was adhered to in the breach.
23. Learned counsel submitted that illegal arrest, abuse of women, young persons on false implications, routine applications for remand had been resorted to and the Judicial Magistrate concerned mechanically had directed remand. Learned counsel referred to the decision of the Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [2014 (10) SCC 635].
?13. (C) Whenever a specific complaint is made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the IPC. Such case shall be investigated by State CB CID or any other specialized investigation agency.
31.13. The police officer(s) concerned must surrender his/her weapons for forensic and ballistic analysis, including any other material, as required by the investigating team, subject to the rights under Article 20 of the Constitution.?
The remands effected by Judicial Magistrate should be scrutinized by this Court.
24. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018, the petitioners had sought the following reliefs:
I)To order for an independent enquiry by the 3rd respondent to probe the causes that led to the police firing and excesses in Tuticorin on 22.05.2018; II)To direct the District Judge, Tuticorin, to visit the Government Hospital, Tuticorin and the High Ground Hospital, Tirunelveli and to file a report with regard to the actual toll of death and with regard to the status of missing persons;
III)To immediately withdraw the police force from the residential localities and stop indiscriminate arrest and torture;
IV)To immediately shift the injured persons to Madurai and to provide adequate medical care;
V)To ensure the supply of basic amenities like Milk, Rice, Dhall, Electricity and other provisions and to ensure free mobility;
VI)To ensure the release of suspended Internet, Whatsup and other information related activities.?
25. Excepting the one seeking independent enquiry, all other prayers presently were infructuous. Even the prayer seeking independent enquiry would not now survive consideration since the State has already appointed a Commission of enquiry. The prayer in W.P.(MD) Nos.11396, 11397, 11399 and 11401 of 2018 do not now survive consideration as issues already stood addressed.
26. On W.P.(MD) Nos.11402 and 11502 of 2018 seeking appointment of High Level Committee comprising of Supreme Court and High Court Judges etc., learned Additional Advocate General would state that National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commission were conducting enquiry into the matter and same did not require consideration. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in W.P.(MD) No.11398 of 2018, petitioner has sought transfer of respondent No.4. Such official had been transferred and joined elsewhere even on 17.05.2018. Regards prayer in W.P.(MD) No.13417 of 2018 seeking police action in keeping with Section 41-A Cr.P.C., learned Additional Advocate General submitted action, was being taken against persons, who had violated an order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that 243 cases had been registered through out the District upto 14.06.2018. 244 persons have been arrested. Over the next one month, only 18 persons had been arrested. 43 persons had been granted anticipatory bail, and 187 had been released on bail. All accused had been remanded to custody on Judicial Magistrate being duly satisfied regards the need therefor through perusal of records. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no arrest had been effected after 08.07.2018.
27. He submitted that 94 persons had been taken for purposes of interrogation to the Varusanadu Firing Range and 65 of them had been arrested on 23.05.2018 and were sent for judicial remand, the next day. Order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. had been passed in obedience of this Court?s order in W.P.(MD) Nos.9909 of 2018, 10218 and 10219 of 2018 dated 18.05.2018. At the Peace Committee Meeting, the Sub-Collector had been present and the petitioners were trying to make too much of the fact that the District Magistrate/District Collector was not. Order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. was passed on the night on 21.05.2018 and wide coverage there regards had been made both through news relayed by television and through newspapers. The same was also announced through mega phones. Despite repeated requests, the protesters did not disperse. More than 140 persons were injured, which included 70 police men. The mob damaged the Collectorate. A four floor hotel was also damaged and vehicles were set on fire resulting in loss of property worth crores of rupees. There was no alternative and firing had been resorted to towards protecting members of the public and staff at the Collectorate. Over 99 days the police had not disturbed the protesters.
28. By way of reply, Mr.Henri Tiphagne, learned counsel submitted that protesters have acted in exercise of their rights under Article 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India. They had not resorted to any road-roko. An order u/s.144 Cr.P.C is to be served in the manner provided by Section 134 Cr.P.C. Section 134 Cr.P.C. reads thus:
?134. Service or notification of order.- (1) The order shall, if practicable, be served on the person against whom it is made, in the manner herein provided for service of a summons.
(2) If such order cannot, be so served, it shall be notified by proclamation, published in such manner as the State Government may, by rule, direct, and a copy thereof shall be stuck up at such place or places as may be fittest for conveying the Information to such person.?
29. If it was State's case that sub-section 2 of Section 134 Cr.P.C. would apply, it was necessary for the State to show that the same indeed was complied with. This, the State was unable to do. There were no photographs or other proof of promulgation. This leads to the irresitable conclusion that order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. came much later and at the behest ?interested persons?. Learned counsel submits that a private company had sought an order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. for a period of two months in a letter by its General Manager to the District Collector. It sought special support and that internet services be stopped. This only reveals the closeness and collusiveness between such company and authorities. By informing the passage of an order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. on 21.07.2018 the commemoration of 100th day protest on 22.07.2018 had been avoided at the instance of such company. In 7 cases, complaints had been preferred to the station House Officer by the family members of the deceased for registration of cases u/s.302 IPC. No FIRs had been registered but on the other hand such persons are being summoned. Even today, the postmortem certificates of the deceased were not available. Even detention under National Security Act has been resorted to.
30. Learned counsel submitted that this Court ought to require the jurisdictional Magistrate to look into compliance with Section 41-B and 41-C and other related provisions of Cr.P.C. towards avoiding further incidences such as that which took place at Thoothukudi.
31. Learned counsel also placed before us the judgment of the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C)7608/2017 [Amandeep Singh Johar vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another], wherein a specific procedure had been directed to be followed in effecting compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.
32. Learned counsel further informed that after much hearing by this Court in the present matters, summons were now being issued by the police u/s.41-A Cr.P.C. People, who in response thereto go over to the police station, are being required to answer questionnaires containing as many as 69 questions.
33. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11394 of 2018 submitted that the entire police shooting was premeditated. It was false to make claims such as need to resort to shooting to save sterlite workers. Theresapuram is 20 kms. away from the Collectorate. Soon after shooting was resorted to at the Collectorate at 2.30 p.m., the same was done also at Theresapuram. It was necessary that cases be registered u/s.302 IPC in keeping with National Human Rights Guidelines and Supreme Court Rulings.
34. Mr.A.Kannan, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11391 of 2018, relying on the judgment of Apex Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [2014 (10) SCC 635], submitted that cases be registered for offence u/s.302 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that passage of time would facilitate erasing of evidence.
35. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P(MD).No.11399 of 2018 submitted that after the Police shooting on 22.05.2018, internet services had been cut off between 23.05.2018 to 27.05.2018. On 23.05.2018 one had been shot dead at Annanagar and another at Theresapuram. He alleged that internet shutdown was to screen such wrong doing. Learned Additional Advocate General intervened to submit that none had been shot dead on 23.05.2018 and the incident at Theresapuram was of 22.05.2018. Learned counsel for petitioner would continue and state that 93 persons had wrongfully been taken from Kumarareddy Palayam to the Varasanadu Firing Range and the Judicial Magistrate had gone there and 65 persons were remanded in a mechanical manner. On 25.05.2018 this Court directed the District Legal Service Authority, Tuticorin to make necessary arrangements to provide legal assistance to persons belonging to family of the victims/remanded prisoners and needy persons, as the case may be. The aforesaid exercise was to be undertaken by the District Legal Service Authority by availing the services of the panel lawyers of the District Legal Service Authority, Tuticorin, under monitoring by the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi with Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.
36. Learned counsel submitted that Police personnel had also been admitted into hospital as injured merely to screen Police wrong doing. Shutdown of internet services in two districts of Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari for two days and in Tuticorin district for 5 days has had severe adverse effects, particularly that students had been denied opportunity to attempt examinations. Learned counsel submitted that this Court would pass such orders as would avoid such actions in future.
37. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted Police firing had been resorted to pursuant to orders of an Executive Magistrate towards dispersing a riotous mob. Police had acted in keeping with Police Standing Order 703. Discontinuance of Telecom service had been done pursuant to Gazette Publication No.679 in keeping with the order of this Court in W.P(MD).Nos.11391 and 11401 of 2018. The Secretary, Home Department, a duly empowered person, had effected due review and revoked order in G.O.No.679 in two days in so far as Tirunelveli and Kanyakumari were concerned and two days thereafter at Tuticorin. Seeking to meet the contention of there not having been due publication of the order u/s. 144 Cr.P.C., learned Additional Advocate General submitted that publication had been effected through Collector's Social media platform apart from news papers in English and Tamil. Order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. in Na.Ka.C2/8196/18 dated 29.07.2018 had been passed pursuant to direction of this Court to consider the petition of Sterlite for protection in W.P.No. 2190 of 2018 dated 18.05.2018.
38. Learned Additional Advocate General would urge this Court to keep in mind ground realities. He submitted that the industries functioning had been closed on 31.03.2018. It had not functioned since such date. To allay fears of reopening, Government had clarified that the decision to close the industry was one of policy. Water and electricity had been disconnected. The premises had been sealed by Revenue officials. Allotment by Sipcot towards expansion of the industry had been cancelled. The company had appealed before the National Green Tribunal. Government had raised strong objections and till date industry had not obtained any permission. Police had not interfered with the agitation that had carried on over 99 days and nothing untoward had happened. On the 100th day anti social elements intentionally vandalized and created a law and order problem. Government could not sit quiet and eventually was put to the need of resorting to Police firing. The National Human Rights commission and State Human Rights Commission were enquiring into the matter as was a commission of enquiry appointed by Government. The weapons used by Police had been seized by CBCID and had been forwarded to Court. They already had been sent for Forensic analysis.
39. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that a petition u/s. 97 had been filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and under his orders the Judicial Magistrate had caused inspection at Varasanadu Firing Range. 93 persons had been secured for interrogation. Those involved in the wrongful activities were found to be 65. Such persons had been remanded to Judicial custody and to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate.
40. On the prayer for enhancement in compensation, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the same had been effected. A sum of Rs.20 lakhs had been paid in case of death and Rs.10 lakhs in case of serious injuries. Learned Additional Advocate General took this Court to the interim order passed in W.P.(MD) No.11390 of 2018 and batch on 25.05.2018 and submitted that when this Court had directed the State to ascertain the possibility of revoking suspension of internet in two Districts in Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli in the interests of students as well as general public. State had immediately and favourably responded.
41. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record.
42. The State has much to answer.
(a)In the face of definite input of anti-social elements infiltrating the 100th day protests on 22.05.2018, leading to the passing of an order u/s.144 Cr.P.C. on 21.05.2018 at 10.30 p.m., the absence of the District Collector/District Magistrate, rather is unusual. Police firing has been ordered by one, who is not a jurisdictional Executive Magistrate and admittedly on his assuming powers which he did not possess. He, who informs of having passed an order for police firing, informs that he had travelled along with the protesters over 12 to 13 kms. Protesters, informed to be in thousands, had travelled 13 kms. without any hindrance. It is the claim of the petitioners that they had not indulged in any violence on the way whereas the State would claim otherwise. A reading of the First Information Report in Crime No.191 of 2018 on the file of Thootukudi SIPCOT Police Station, registered at his instance, informs that even he had not acted in keeping with Police Standing Order 703. The very First Information Report informs that all actions required of the Executive Magistrate prior to passing of order for shooting were done, not by him, but by police officials. It is not even the case of the State that before resorting to firing, water cannons were used. State has chosen not to file a counter in any of the cases.
(b)How self loading riffles found their way out of the armoury and came to be used in shooting dead persons, how the snipers were perched atop vehicles and how persons came to be shot in the face and chest, all are questions that cry for an answer.
(c)In the course of arguments, we have heard one of the learned counsel for respondents addressing the other side with an audacious remark ?don't go by one incident of a person firing from atop a police van?. Why ever not ?
(d)The case of the petitioners is that the State/police and other authorities are guilty of murder. We fail to understand how not a single case, not even invoking Section 174 Cr.P.C., has been registered at the instance of the injured/family members of the deceased. The truth or otherwise of the allegation is a matter for investigation. An investigation cannot be altogether avoided. We have above recorded how, even according to the State, police shooting came to be resorted to. Admittedly, he, who ordered the same, had assumed powers of an Executive Magistrate. Whether he was justified in doing so or not, whether he would be entitled to protection u/s.79 IPC or not, whether shooting persons in the face and chest amounted to police excesses of murder or not, to state a few, are all matters for investigation. Were incidents orchestrated and if so, by whom is to be looked into. How and why protesters were permitted to gather in their thousands and proceed as much as 12 kms. leading to the occurrence at the Collectorate is to be probed. The allegation of shooting at Theresapuram, which is 12 kms. away from the Collectorate having been resorted to, shortly after shooting was resorted to at Collectorate, is to be probed. Cases have to be registered against the authorities for offences u/s.302 IPC as also for other offences under the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and such other acts as may be attracted. The dicta of the Supreme Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and another v. State of Maharashtra and others [2014 (10) SCC 635] that ?13. (C) Whenever a specific complaint is made against the police alleging commission of a criminal act on their part, which makes out a cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR to this effect must be registered under appropriate sections of the IPC. Such case shall be investigated by State CB CID or any other specialized investigation agency? is to be strictly followed. The same would apply with equal force also in respect of allegations of grave wrong doing by officialdom in any form.
43. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. It can hardly be expected that any investigation, either into the wrong doings of the protesters or of the Administration/Police, would inspire confidence if entrusted to agencies of this State. In passing orders in W.P.(MD) Nos.15421 and 15660 of 2018 on 02.08.2018, this Court had, with due deference and in expectation that an order on the manner of investigation would be passed by the Honourable First Bench of this Court, held its hands. This Court had stopped with directing complaints in all F.I.Rs. registered in connection with the happenings of 22.05.2018 and related in any manner to the Anti-Sterlite protests in and around Thoothukudi be treated as Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements in Crime No.191 of 2018. It is no secret that the Honourable First Bench of this Court had raised a question of why the investigation should not be handed over to the CBI. We on independent consideration and for reasons aforesaid would affirm such opinion.
44. Accordingly, we direct as follows:
(i)Under orders in W.P.(MD) Nos.15421 and 15660 of 2018 dated 02.08.2018, we had directed that all F.I.Rs. registered in connection with happenings of 22.05.2018 and related in any manner to the Anti-Sterlite protests at Thoothukudi be treated as 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements in Crime No.191 of 2018, originally registered by the fifth respondent (Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi) and presently on the file of third respondent (The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai).
Accordingly, we direct investigation in Crime No.191 of 2018 on the file of Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station, shall stand transferred to the file of Central Bureau of Investigation as also that in Crime No.190 of 2018 on the file of Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station.
(ii)The CBI shall register case/cases on the complaints received against official/ police in respect of occurrences at Thootukudi on 22.05.2018 and cause investigation thereon. The CBI shall also cause investigation on the aspects which we have herein above indicated. The CBI shall not be restricted to consider only issues which have been highlighted herein above. In other words, it will be duty of the CBI to get to the bottom of things and file such charge sheet/charge sheets, as investigation reveals and necessitates. The action herein above ordered shall be completed within a period of four months of the receipt of this order. Towards such end, the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi is directed to appoint a special team for investigation as above ordered.
(iii)On claims for additional compensation for death/injuries, we will close the matter for now leaving it open to the concerned to move afresh therefor subject to the findings of the CBI.
45. Even if resort to Police firing was not premeditated, this case demonstrates, not only that Police Standing Order 703 has not been followed but that such provision, by itself, affords no assurance against subsequent occurrences of similar nature. We direct the Director General of Police to form a Committee towards recasting and modifying Police Standing Order 703 so as to meet future contingencies. International Standards for the use of force and fire arms as per the United Nations Guidelines thereon of 1990 as also other material/contemporary literature may usefully be referred to.
46. Telecom services ? We direct the Secretary to Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, to form a Committee towards ensuring that in taking recourse to the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency of Public Safety) Rules, 2017, International Standards, recommended by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression are maintained.
The Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
To
1.The Chief Secretary to Government, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
3.The Director General of Police, No.4, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai ? 600 004.
4.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai.
5.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
6.The Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
7.The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin.
8.Mr.Kapilkumar Saratkar, I.P.S., Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range, Tirunelveli.
9.Mr.Mahendran, Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin District.
10.Mr.Venkatesh, I.A.S., The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Tuticorin District.
11.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Plot No.5 B, Lodhi Road, CGO Complex, New Delhi ? 110 003.
12.The Home Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai.
13.The Director, C.B.I., South Zone, Chennai.
14.The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.
15.The Dean, O/o.Government Hospital, Thoothukudi District.
16.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
17.The Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu, Finance Department, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
18.The Dean, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai ? 625 020.
19.The Secretary to the Government, Public and Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
20.The Director General of Police, Beach Road, Chennai.
21.Mr.P.Muthu The Sub-Inspector of Police, Head Quarters, Special Branch attached with District Police Office, Thoothukudi District.
22.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Chennai.
23.The Secretary, Broadcasting Ministry and Information Department, New Delhi.
24.The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Broadcasting Department and Information Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
25.The Health Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai ? 600 009.
26.The Home Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi.
27.The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Home, Secretariat, St.George Fort, Chennai.
28.The Dean, Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
29.The Home Secretary, Union of India, North Block, Cabinet Secretariat, Raisina Hill, New Delhi ? 110 001.
30.The Director General of Police (Law and Order), Santhome, Chennai ? 4.
31.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Thoothukudi.
32.Sekar, Special Deputy Tahsildar (Elections), Office of the Tahsilar, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
33.M.Kannan, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District.
34.Chandran, Deputy Tahsildar (Excise), Thoothukudi.
35.The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
36.The Superintendent, Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai.
37.The Home Secretary, Department of Home and Affairs, Fort St.George,Chennai.
38.The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Thoothukudi District.
39.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, 3rd Floor, EVK Sampath Maligai, Chennai ? 600 006.
40.The Additional Director General of Police, CBCID, Egmore, Chennai.
41.The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve), Tuticorin, Tuticorin District.
42.The Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Natham Road, Madurai ? 625 002.
43.The Chairman, District Legal Services Authority, District Court Buildings, Thoothukudi ? 628 003.
44.The Inspector of Police, Thoothukudi South Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
45.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
46.The Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
47.The Inspector of Police, Puthukotti Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
48.The Inspector of Police, Puthiamputhur Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
49.The Inspector of Police, Muthiahpuram Police Sation, Thoothukudi District.
50.The Inspector of Police, Sayarpuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
.