Thol.Thirumavalavan vs The Home Secretary on 27 August, 2013

[Cites 29, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Thol.Thirumavalavan vs The Home Secretary on 27 August, 2013

Praying for a direction to the respondents to form a Forensic Expert Team headed by 'Padmabushan' Prof. Chandrasekaran, Former Director of Forensic Department, Chennai to assist the investigation of the death of Ilavarasan, a case registered on the file of the 6th respondent Police Station in Crime No.96 of 2013, the petitioner has come up with the present Writ Petition.

2. Facts of the case, as put forth by the petitioner in the affidavit, would run thus:

2.1. The petitioner is the President of the "Vidhuthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi", which is a registered Political Party. From the beginning, Vidhuthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi works for the upliftment of the poor and downtrodden people and it participates in public issues such as Cauvery issue, Eelam issue and fights to get justice for each and every people. Vidhuthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi is a People's Political Party. It fights against caste and race discrimination and untouchability, etc. and also fights against several injustices committed against poor persons, each and every day. In each and every public issue, Vidhuthalai Chiruthaikal Katchi puts maximum struggle and hard work to get justice. It played an important role to uplift the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe community and fights for their Reservation and also for the Reservation of Backward Classes and Most Backward Classes.

2.2. Though our country has developed a lot, caste system, racism, caste discrimination and untouchability have not changed. Few months back, one Divya, aged about 20 years belonging to Vanniyar caste and one Ilavarasan, aged about 20 years belonging to Scheduled Caste community had a love affair and got married on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, they lived in Natham Village, Dharmapuri District. But, the relatives of Divya and her community people did not accept their marriage and created several problems. Even some Caste based Political parties criticized the inter-caste marriage of Ilavarasan and Divya. Further, some leaders from the caste based Political parties created animosity between the upper caste people and the Schedule caste people through their speeches, interview and writings. Due to such type of social pressures, Divya's father is said to have committed suicide.

2.3. Thereafter, on 12.11.2012, thousands of anti-social elements attacked three Dalit Community Villages, viz., Natham, Kottarampatti, Anna Nagar in Dharmapuri District, set fire to the houses of the Dalit Communicty people and destroyed their entire properties. Due to the said attack, all the Schedule Caste community people of the said Villages lost their houses and belongings and they were put in streets as also, most of them were severely injured. This gory incident was condemned by most of the political leaders.

2.4. Our great leaders like Dr.Ambedkar and Thanthai Periyar greatly fought for abolition of caste discrimination and they also taught to abolish caste discrimination and their teachings mostly say that inter-caste marriages will be the foremost source for abolition of caste system. Further, the Government also provides aid to those who are doing inter-case marriages.

2.5. Till date, caste system, caste clashes survive everywhere in India and some caste based leaders are creating caste discrimination problems and they are all against inter-caste marriage and are giving speeches against inter-caste marriage, which leads to several problems and in turn, that has led to the gory Dharmapuri District incident on 12.11.2012, where, three Dalit Villages were entirely collapsed. Some of the caste based political parties very often kindle castism and racism in the minds of the public.

2.6. In the meantime, Divya's mother filed a Habeas Corpus Petition before this Court and when the said Petition came up for hearing, originally, the girl Divya stated that she married Ilavarasan and she wants to be with Ilavarasan and the matter was adjourned and both of them were living together in their matrimonial home. Thereafter, Divya was threatened by some anti-social elements and hence, lastly when the said Habeas Corpus Petition came up before this Court on 03.07.2013, Divya said that as her father died, she wants to quit her matrimonial home and she does not want to be with Ilavarasan and also that she wants to go with her mother.

2.7. Pursuant thereto, on 04.07.2013, the said Ilavarasan was found dead with a head injury nearby the Railway track, backside of Arts College in Natham Village, Dharmapuri District. Regarding the same, a complaint was lodged by the Village Administrative Officer before the 6th respondent Police Station and the same was registered in Crime No.96 of 2013 under Section 174 Cr.P.C.

2.8. A Petition was moved before this Court seeking autopsy on the body of Ilavarasan by a team of Doctors comprising the Doctor of the choice of the deceased Ilavarasan's family members. As several questions and suspicions arose regarding the death of Ilavarasan, the same were submitted before this Court on 08.07.2013 and this Court ordered second autopsy on Ilavarasan's body.

2.9. Ilavarasan's death has created several suspicions, one of which is, had the said Ilavarasan been run over by a Train, definitely his body would have gone into pieces, but, his body was found near the Railway Track only with head injury. Had the Train been run in a speed of 50 kms, the deceased Ilavarasan would have been thrown at a long distance, at least 15 to 20 feet away from the Railway track, but the body of the deceased was found very near the Railway track and even if the Train had hit Ilavarasan, his lungs and heart would have been collapsed. But, the post-mortem report reveals that his lungs and heart were not collpased. Normally, if a person is hit or run over by a Train, the Train Driver will immediately inform the same to the Railway authorities. Likewise, if the Train had run over or hit Ilavarasan, then the Train Driver would have informed the same immediately to the Railway authorities. But, the Kurla Express Train Driver has not given any information to the Railway authorities about it. Furthermore, none of the Drivers of the Trains, which passed through at the scene noticed Ilavarasan's body. Also, had the Kurla Express Train run over Ilavarasan, he would have given a written message to the nearest Station Master immediately. But, no such message was received by the Station Master immediately. Only after four days of the death of Ilavarasan, Tamil Nadu Police authorities have released a Suicide Note alleged to have been written by Ilavarasan, which creates suspicion and some Tamil Nadu Police Officials are creating several suspicious materials and are trying to close this case as 'Suicide'.

2.10. Hence, there is a need to have a familiar Forensic expert to assist the investigation of this case to find out the truth behind the death of Ilavarasan. The nature of death, scene of occurrence, post-mortem Certificates, Inquest Report, letter alleged to have been written by Ilavarasan and other relevant materials necessarily need to be examined by an independent Forensic expert.

2.11. For the above reasons, the petitioner prays this Court to form a Forensic expert team headed by 'Padmabushan' Prof. Chandrasekaran, Former Director of Forensic Department, Chennai to assist the investigation of the case of Ilavarasan's death. Prof. Chandrasekaran is holding the post of Medical Physicist, Erskine Hospital & Lecturer in Biophysics, Madurai Medical College; Director-Professor, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai; Member, Syndicate, Senate & Academic Council, University of Madras; UGC Emeritus Fellow, University of Madras, UGC Professor, National Law School of India University, Bangalore; Professor-Director, School of Science and Forensic Sciences & Pro-Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Jodhpur. He was the former Director of Forensic Department and he was appointed as a Forensic expert in several cases. He dealt about 20,000 cases. Some of the landmark cases are Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, Auto Shankar Murder case, M.V.Chidambaram Ship Fire case, L.I.C. Building Fire case, Moore Market fire, Spencer Building fire and he also dealt with cases in Malaysia, Singapore etc. for investigation as a handwriting expert.

In the above circumstances, having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner is before this Court for the above said relief.

3. The Deputy Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai-9, has a filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated as follows:

3.1. After the marriage of Divya with Ilavarasan on 07.11.2012, there was a misunderstanding between the Dalit Community people and the Vanniar Community people. Further, Thiru.Nagaraj, father of Divya, committed suicide in the night on 07.11.2012. Thereafter, people belonging to Vanniar Community attacked the Dalit Community Village, namely, Natham Colony, Anna Nagar, Kondampatty and Chengalmedu in Dharmapuri District and destroyed the properties in the Village. The Government took immediate action and sent the Inspector of Police, Western Region accompanied by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and three Superintendents of Police. Heavy Police bandobust had been provided in the above said Villages, apart from the fact that police forces were deployed in various places of Dharmapuri District, in order to avoid any untoward incident. The Government took utmost precaution and prevented spreading of law and order problems to neighbouring Districts, after which, normalcy was restored in that area. Pursuant to the death of Ilavarasan on 04.07.2013, there was heavy police bandobust in the above mentioned Villages and also in sensitive places of Dharmapuri District. Hence, law and order situation is now under control.

3.2. With regard to the petitioner's contention that the death of Ilavarasan creates several suspicions and that a Forensic expert team headed by Professor Thiru.Chandrasekaran, former Director of Forensics, Chennai need to be formed to assist the investigation of the death of Ilavarasan, registered in Crime No.96/2013 by the Deputy Superintendent, Coimbatore sub-division, the investigation of the suspicious death of Ilavarasan was entrusted with Thiru.Sampath, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Post-mortem was conducted by a team of three Doctors on 05.07.2013; viscera taken from the dead body of Ilavarasan was sent to the Forensic Science lab for chemical analysis and further examination. All the events stated by the petitioner and other events related to the case in respect of the death of Ilavarasan are presently under investigation by the Police Department. The State Government has appointed an one-member Commission of Inquiry comprising of Justice Thiru.S.R.Singavaravelu, Retired Judge of the High Court of Madras to enquire into the facts and circumstances leading to the death of Ilavarasan, in G.O.Ms.No.670, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, dated 08.07.2013.

3.3. Forensic experts are also involved in the investigation, which is duly monitored by the District Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Utmost care is being taken during the investigation and the Police Department gets all the required assistance from the Forensic Science Department. A separate wing of Forensic Sciences Department, having a vast background was started in 1849, after having changed in many colours in its development. Now, it consists of 14 specialised analytical divisions, inclusive of Anthropology, Ballistics, Biology, Toxicology and DNA Serology to fulfill the need of various units of Police Department.

3.4. Forensic Sciences Department examines/analyses/compares the material objects/clue materials related to crime/civil cases referred by Courts/Police Officers/Medical Officers and conducts scientific examination required by Government cases referred by its Departments, Civil Courts and other agencies. The main objective of this institution is to render quality scientific service to all types of criminal cases for the cause of justice to prove innocence/guilt by employing classical as well as modern scientific technologies/equipments. Forensic Department has existed even before 1849. The oldest traceable report of this Department is dated 30.10.1849. The "Chemical Examiners Labarotory" for the police purpose (1859) and the "Prohibition & Excise Laboratory" for revenue purpose (1886) and establishment of scientific sections under police (1905) have crossed different administrative changes and been merged to become State Forensic Science Laboratory (1959) and in its present form as Forensic Sciences Department in 1984. At present, it is functioning as an independent Department under the direct control of Home Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. During the year 2011, the Forensic Sciences Department has efficiently analysed 2,52,851 articles pertaining to 64,961 criminal cases. The main Laboratory is located in Chennai with the following 15 divisions :

Anthropology Ballistics Biology Chemistry Documents Excise Explosives Instruments Narcotics Physics Photography Prohibition Research and Development (R & D) Serology and Toxicology Highly qualified and competent scientists are heading the above divisions and they are well-experienced in handling the present case.

3.5. Hence, there is no necessity for a team headed by Professor Chandrasekaran, Retired Forensic Director to assist the investigation of the suspicious death of Ilavarasan, as a competent team in the Forensic Department is already under way. Further, the Department will utilize all the services of the concerned experts, if needed, in the investigation. There will be no lacuna in the investigation and the investigation is properly monitored by the Superintendent of Police of Dharmapuri District. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner cannot be complied with and that the Writ petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the assistance of a forensic expert, by name, Padmabhushan Prof. Chandrasekaran, Former Director of Forensic Department, Chennai, is very much required to ensure fair investigation of the case relating to the suspicious death of Ilavarasan and, therefore, it is just and necessary to direct the respondents to avail the expertise from the said person. He has relied on the following decisions:

(i) CDJ 1989 SC 610 (Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights through its Secretary and another vs. Police Commissioner, Delhi Police Headquarters and another) "2. It is an unfortunate case where the police collected poor people and took them to the police station for doing some work. They were asked to work without labour charges. On demand, they were beaten and it appears that one of them, Ram Swaroop succumbed to the injuries and the body has also been disposed of. Petitioner 2 Patasi, as alleged, was also stripped of her clothes and was thrashed in the police station. The other eight persons namely (1) Dandwa (2) Ram Prasad (3) Jaipal (4) Mahavir (5) Kannu (6) Munsjia (7) Hukka and (8) Pratap were also beaten up rather than they should have been paid for the work they did at the police station."

(ii) (1992) 1 SCC 397 (Gudalure M.J.Cherian and others vs. Union of India and others) "8. It is obvious from the affidavit of the Senior Superintendent, Police that the nuns who are victims of the tragedy are not coming forward to identify the culprits in an identification parade to be held by the Magistrate. The petitioners on the other hand, have alleged that the four persons who have been set up as accused by the police are not the real culprits and the police is asking the sisters to accept the four arrested persons as culprits. In the face of these averments and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if we direct the CBI to hold further investigation in respect of the offences committed between the night of July 12 and 13, 1990 as per the FIR lodged at Police Station, Gajraula."

(iii) 1994 Supp (1) SCC 143 (R.S.Lodhi vs. State of U.P. and others) "2. We have examined the facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the petition and the events that have taken place after the so-called encounters. Whether the loss of lives was on account of a genuine or a fake encounter is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely. We, however, refrain from making any observation in that behalf; we should, therefore, not be understood even remotely to be expressing any view thereon one way or the other. We have perused the events that have taken place since the incidents but we are refraining from entering upon the details thereof lest it may prejudice any party but we think that since the accusations are directed against the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. However faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation forthwith and we do hope that it would complete the investigation at an early date so that those involved in the occurrences, one way or the other, may be brought to book. We direct accordingly. In so ordering we mean no reflection on the credibility of either the local police or the State Government but we have been guided by the larger requirements of justice. The writ petition and the review petition stand disposed of by this order."

(iv) (1994) 1 SCC 616 (Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh vs. State of Punjab and others) "8. We have heard Mr. Rajinder Sachar, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr.G.K.Chatrath, learned Advocate-General for the State of Punjab. It is not necessary for us to go into the question as to whether the writ petition before the High Court was for bringing an end to the lawyers strike or to appoint an independent inquiry-agency to probe into the disappearance and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family. Be that as it may the fact remains that the five-Judge Bench of the High Court was seized of the matter wherein the issues regarding the abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family were raised before it. The report of the Action Committee of the Bar Association, statements recorded by the police including that of Harpreet Singh @ Lucky and other relevant documents were before the High Court. The High Court was wholly unjustified in closing its eyes and ears to the controversy which had shocked the lawyer fraternity in the region. For the reasons best known to it, the High Court became wholly oblivious to the patent facts on the record and failed to perform the duty entrusted to it under the Constitution. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the least the High Court could have done in this case was to have directed an independent investigation/inquiry into the mysterious and most tragic abduction and alleged murder of Kulwant Singh, Advocate and his family."

(v) (1996) 7 SCC 20 (Paramjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) "17. The second issue highlighted in this petition is equally important. This Court cannot close its eyes to the contents of the Press Note dated 16-1-1995 stated to be investigated by Khalra and Dhillon. In case it is found that the facts stated in the Press Note are correct even partially it would be a gory tale of human rights violations. It is horrifying to visualize that dead bodies of large number of persons allegedly thousandscould be cremated by the police unceremoniously with a label unidentified.Our faith in democracy and rule of law assures us that nothing of the type can ever happen in this country but the allegations in the Press Note horrendous as they are need thorough investigation. We, therefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, to appoint a high-powered team to investigate into the facts contained in the Press Note dated 16-1-1995. We direct all the authorities concerned of the State of Punjab including the Director General of Police, Punjab to render all assistance to the CBI in the investigation. All authorities of the Punjab Government shall render all help and assistance to the CBI team as and when asked by any member of the said team. We give liberty to the CBI to seek any further directions from this Court from time to time as may be necessary during the investigation."

(vi) CDJ 2006 Karnakata HC 127 (State of Karnakata vs. Marulasiddaiah @ Murali) "5. In this connection, we brought to the notice of the learned Addl. SPP the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ramesh Purdappa Ambannavar and others vs. State of Karnataka wherein, in para No.46 of the said judgment, the Division Bench headed by Justice Padmaraj and the first of us, observed as hereunder:

"46. In the context, we may observe here that the Forensic Science play vital role in crime detections today. The well organized criminals in the criminal world, as a matter of fact, hold the society and the law abiding citizens to ransom; of late we are also witnessing organized crimes with international ramifications. That being so, a systematic scientific approach by the Investigating Agency to detect the crimes by resorting to the latest techniques and devices is the need of the hour. It therefore appears to us that it is good of the State to give equal importance for development of Forensic Science too in the matter of crime detections by making adequate budgetary provisions to the said Branch also (if not so made yet), so that more and more, personnel in the Forensic Branch are trained inside and outside India to update their knowledge in the latest techniques in the field of Forensic Science to be in did to the law enforcing agencies of the State in the matter of crime detection. All the more the Society will be safe if the authorities are ahead of their time in this regard; least, we fear they may be caught unaware."

(vii) AIR 2010 SC 1476 (State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and ors.) "35. As regards the power of judicial review conferred on the High Court, undoubtedly they are, in a way, wider in scope. The High Courts are authorised under Article 226 of the Constitution, to issue directions, orders or writs to any person or authority, including any government to enforce fundamental rights and, "for any other purpose". It is manifest from the difference in the phraseology of Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution that there is a marked difference in the nature and purpose of the right conferred by these two Articles. Whereas the right guaranteed by Article 32 can be exercised only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but "for any other purpose" as well, i.e. for enforcement of any legal right conferred by a Statute, etc.

37. In Dwarkanath's case (AIR 1966 SC 81) (supra), this Court had said that Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. This Article enables the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and extraordinary circumstances of the case. Therefore, what we have said above in regard to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 32, must apply equally in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution."

(viii) CDJ 2012 MHC 523 (Thol. Thiruma Valavan & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary and others)

23. ... As far as the case on hand is concerned, as already pointed out, there are allegations and counter allegations made against each other and allegations made against police officials and as such, if local police even faithfully conducting investigation as claimed by the Investigating Officer in this case, the same would certainly lack credibility in view of the allegations levelled against police officials of the State. We are also of the considered view that the facts and circumstances of the instant case raises exceptional situations resulting in the death of 6 persons belonging to a particular community and allegations have been thrown against police officials, making a strong prima facie ground for a fair and unbiased investigation in this case by an independent agency."

(ix) CDJ 2012 MHC 6226 (R.Sankarasubbu vs. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai & others) "76. In view of the above conclusions,

(i) We hereby appoint Mr.R.K.Raghavan, former Director of Central Bureau of Investigation, as Investigating Officer of Special Investigation Team (SIT), to be assisted by Dr.M.Narayana Reddy, former Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania University, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh to investigate this case.

(ii) Mr.R.K.Raghavan, shall select his own Team of Officers from the Tamil Nadu State Police to be the members of the Special Investigating Team.

(iii) We further direct the Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, to spare the services of those Police Officers, whom Mr.R.K.Raghavan, requires to be part of the Special Investigating Team.

(iv) The Director General of Police, Government of Tamil Nadu, is further directed to render fullest co-operation and provide all assistance, including manpower to assist the Special Investigating Team and to provide vehicles and other modes of conveyance for the Special Investigating Team.

(v) The Director, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, shall provide all assistance to the Special Investigating Team as and when required by them.

(vi) The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, is directed to pay initial remuneration of Rs.1,50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only] to Mr.R.K.Raghavan and Rs.75,000/- [Rupees Seventy Fifty Thousand only] to Mr.M.Narayana Reddy within a period of four weeks from today. The final remuneration to be paid shall be decided later."

5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents, would contend that when the affected parties are available, filing of the Writ Petition by the petitioner in the name of Public Interest Litigation is an abuse of process of law; hence, the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition and, as such, the Writ Petition is to be dismissed. He has relied on the following decisions :

(i) (1981) 1 SCC 568 (Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union, Sindri and others vs. Union of India and others) "43. Public interest litigation is part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps. The floodgates argument has been nailed by the Australian Law Reforms Commission:

The idle and whimsical plaintiff, a dilettante who litigates for a lark, is a specter which haunts the legal literature, not the courtroom.

A major expressed reason for limiting standing rights is fear of a spate of actions brought by busy bodies which will unduly extend the resources of the courts. No argument is easier put, none more difficult to rebut. Even if the fear be justified it does not follow that present restrictions should remain. If proper claims exist it may be necessary to provide resources for their determination. However, the issue must be considered.

... Over recent years successive decisions of the United States Supreme Court have liberalised standing so as to afford a hearing to any person with a real interest in the relevant controversy. Surveying the result in 1973 Professor Scott commented:

When the floodgates of litigation are opened to some new class of controversy by a decision it is notable how rarely one can discern the flood that the dissentors feared.

Professor Scott went on to point out that the liberalised standing rules had caused no significant increase in the number of actions brought, arguing that parties will not litigate at considerable personal cost unless they have a real interest in a matter. We agree with the conclusion of the Commission:

The moral, perhaps, applies; if the courts cannot, or will not, give relief to people who are in fact concerned about a matter then they will resort to self-held, with grave results for other persons and the rule of law. Some may reply that if there is no evidence of a great increase in numbers there is no evidence of need for enlarged standing rights. The reply would overlook two considerations. One case may have a dramatic effect on behaviour in hundreds of others; this is the whole notion of the legal test case, Secondly, the mere exposure to possible action is likely to effect the behaviour of persons who presently feel themselves immune from legal control.

47. In the present case a worker, who, clearly, has an interest in the industry, brings this action regarding an alleged wrongdoing by the Board of Management. Article 43-A of the Constitution confers, in principle, partnership status to workers in industry and we cannot, therefore, be deterred by technical considerations of corporate personality to keep out those who seek to remedy wrongs committed in the management of public sector. Locus standi and justiciability are different issues, as I have earlier pointed out. This takes us to the question of justiciability of questions like sale of public property by public bodies. Certainly, it is not part of the judicial process to examine entrepreneurial activities to ferret out flaws. The court is least equipped for such oversights. Nor, indeed, is it a function of the Judges in our constitutional scheme. We do not think that the internal management, business activity or institutional operation of public bodies can be subjected to inspection by the court. To do so, is incompetent and improper and, therefore, out of bounds. Nevertheless, the broad parameters of fairness in administration, bona fides in action, and the fundamental rules of reasonable management of public business, if breached, will become justiciable.

48. If a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country, the door of the court will not be ajar for him. But, if he belongs to an organisation which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered. I, therefore, take the view that the present petition would clearly have been permissible under Article 226.

49. The learned Attorney-General drew our attention to Article 32 and cited decisions to support his contention that only the petitioners fundamental rights could be agitated under that Article. As the rulings now stand, he is right, although the question still survives as to whether a workers fundamental right under Article 14 is not affected when arbitrary action of the enterprise in which he is employed has an impact on his well-being.

50. The democratisation of judicial remedies which is the thrust of our separate opinion, induces us to conclude with a quote:

It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome of brick and left it of marble. But how much nobler will be the sovereigns boast when he shall have it to say that he found law dear and left it cheap; found it a sealed book and left it a living letter; found it the patrimony of the rich and left it the inheritance of the poor; found it the two-edged sword of craft and oppression and left it the staff of honesty and the shield of innocence. Having sought to illumine the half-lit zone of access jurisprudence, we wish to make it clear that we are not dealing with the likely application of Article 19 (1)(f) [sic 19(1) (g)] or of Article 14 which have been raised in the present case because the learned Chief Justice has held that on the merits the action of the Corporation is above-board. The question which we reserve may well be considered when an appropriate occasion arises.

(ii) (1992) 4 SCC 305 (Janata Dal vs. H.S.Chowdhary and others) "45. The Special Judge disposed of the petition holding, Shri H.S. Chowdhary has no locus standi to claim the reliefs sought for in the petition. In the revision petition, Mr H.S. Chowdhary took certain additional grounds stating that the first information report has not disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence and the CBI has gone wrong in registering the FIR in the absence of any additional evidence which were not available before the JPC and that the letter rogatory ought not to have been issued without recording evidence. The High Court dismissed the revision petition as being not maintainable on the sole ground of locus standi and did not go to other questions of law raised by Mr.Chowdhary. Only for the first time before this Court, the parties are litigating on the above-stated propositions of law which except for one or two have neither been raised before the courts below nor agitated. Strictly speaking, as the present appeals are preferred challenging only the judgment of the High Court dated December 19, 1990, this Court is called upon to examine the tenability of the reasons given by the High Court as regards the locus standi of Mr.H.S. Chowdhary and in addition, the invocation of the suo motu action of the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This Court while disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 306 of 1991 filed by Mr.H.S. Chowdhary challenging the first part of the order of the High Court dismissing his revision petition on the ground that he has no locus standi, has confined its consideration only on that point. However, with regard to the various questions of law, we expressed our view in our earlier order as follows: (SCC p. 768, para 26) Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.

161. While so, it shocks our judicial conscience that Mr Justice M.K. Chawla before whom no aggrieved or affected party had come challenging the FIR, has taken suo motu action and recorded such a categorical assertion that no offence thereby meaning much less a cognizable offence is made out in the FIR.

162. As pointed out in Nirmaljit Singh Hoon v. State of W.B. that once an investigation by the police is ordered by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code, the Magistrate cannot place any limitations or direct the officer conducting it as to how to conduct the investigation. When that is the position of law, Mr Justice M.K. Chawla, in our considered view, has overstepped his jurisdiction and made the statement which is unwarranted and uncalled for. As we feel that any further deliberation on this matter may affect the merits of the case at any later point of time, we refrain from making any more observation on this aspect as the matter is at the threshold of the investigation.

(iii) (1992) 4 SCC 653 (Simranjit Singh Mann vs. Union of India and another) "8. More apposite is the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary. That was a public interest litigation for quashing an FIR lodged by the CBI on January 22, 1990 based on the core allegation that certain named and unnamed persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy in pursuance whereof they had secured illegal gratification of crores of rupees from Bofors, a Swiss Company, through their agents as a motive or reward. The CBI had moved an application before the learned Judge, Delhi, for the issuance of a letter rogatory to the Swiss authorities for assistance in conducting investigation, which request was conceded. An advocate, Shri Harinder Singh Chowdhary, filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the FIR and the letter rogatory on certain grounds. Several questions of law and fact were raised in support of the challenge. The High Court came to the conclusion that the said third party litigant had no locus standi to maintain the action and so also the interveners had no right to seek impleadment/intervention in the said proceeding. However, the learned Judge took suo motu cognizance of the matter and for reasons stated in his order directed issue of show cause notice to the CBI and the State why the FIR should not be quashed. On appeal this Court came to the conclusion that the learned Judge in the High Court was right in holding that the advocate litigant as well as the interveners had no locus standi. The relevant observations found in paragraph 45 of the judgment read as under : (SCC p. 329, para 45) Even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case of this nature registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. (emphasis supplied) In that case besides the advocate litigant certain political parties like the Janata Dal, the CPI (Marxist), the Indian Congress (Socialist) and one Dr P. Nalla Thampy Thera also approached this Court questioning the High Courts rejection of their request for impleadment/intervention. It was in this context that this Court was required to examine the question whether third parties had any locus standi in criminal proceedings and answered the same as stated above. This decision clearly negatives the submission made by Mr Sodhi in support of the maintainability of this petition. We are, however, in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the observations extracted hereinbefore."

(iv) (2001) 4 SCC 734 (Vinoy Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) "2. Generally speaking, a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.

3. In the instant case the petitioner had not filed the petition in public interest and did not disclose the circumstances which prevented the affected persons from approaching the court. In the discharge of his professional obligations, the petitioner Advocate is not obliged to file the writ petition on behalf of his clients. No circumstance was mentioned in the petition which allegedly incapacitated the affected persons from filing the writ petition. Section 30 of the Advocates Act only entitles an advocate to practise the profession of law and not to substitute himself for his client. The filing of the writ petition in his own name, being not a part of the professional obligation of the advocate, the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition holding that the petitioner had no locus standi."

(v) (2006) 6 SCC 613 (Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII) and another vs. Union of India and others "58. In our opinion, public interest litigation is meant for the benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the court. We also say that PILs are not meant to advance the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle. In our opinion, the liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the established procedure of law under the Constitution, criminal procedure and other cognate statutes. We are also of the opinion that PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings. The records placed before us would only go to show that Respondent 4 had no hand in any of these matters whether in the appointment of Judges or in the change of the prosecutor or on the decision not to file an appeal in the income tax cases."

(vi) W.P.No.15779 of 2008, dated 27.03.2012 (K.Senguttuvan vs. The Secretary to Govt. Home (P & E) Department) "5. ... In a criminal investigation and trial, there is no scope for any third party to butt in and interfere. If at all the accused can make appropriate representation. Merely because an office bearer of the association without disclosing in what capacity he sends an unofficial letter to the Chief Justice, that cannot be treated as a substantive document for derailing an otherwise proper investigation."

(vii) (1963) 2 SCR 52 (State of West Bengal vs. S.N.Basak) "3. ... As to the powers of the judiciary in regard to statutory right of the police to investigate, the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, observed as follows:

"The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course subject to the right of the Court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the court's functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then. It has sometimes been thought that Section 561-A has given increased powers to the Court which it did not possess before that section was enacted. But this is not so. The section gives no new powers, it only provides that those which the court already inherently possesses shall be preserved and is inserted, as Their Lordships think, lest it should be considered that the only powers possessed by the court are those expressly conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code and that no inherent power had survived the passing of that Act."

(viii) (1980) 1 SCC 554 (State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and others) "25. There is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed it is its bounded duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the court requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 of the Code its duty comes to an end. On a cognizance of the offence being taken by the court the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8), there commences the adjudicatory function of the judiciary to determine whether an offence has been committed and if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in its report to the court, and to award adequate punishment according to law for the offence proved to the satisfaction of the court. There is thus a well defined and well demarcated function in the field of crime detection and its subsequent adjudication between the police and the Magistrate. This had been recognised way back in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad9 where the Privy Council observed as under:

In India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as Their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus. In such a case as the present, however, the Courts functions begin when a charge is preferred before it, and not until then.

26. This view of the Judicial Committee clearly demarcates the functions of the executive and the judiciary in the field of detection of crime and its subsequent trial and it would appear that the power of the police to investigate into a cognizable offence is ordinarily not to be interfered with by the judiciary."

(ix) (1995) 3 SCC 601 (Director, CBI and others vs. Niyamavedi, rep. by its Member K.Nandini, Advocate and others) "4. The petitioners had, as directed by the Division Bench, produced for perusal of the Court case diaries of the Kerala State Police as well as of the CBI relating to the investigations carried out in respect of the said crimes including the statements recorded in the course of investigation and certain video cassettes in that connection. These were perused by the Division Bench in chambers. However, a reference at some length has been made in the course of the judgment to the material disclosed in the course of investigation, presumably, in order to examine the contention relating to the alleged involvement of the first respondent in the crimes in question. Clearly, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, only a very limited use can be made of the statements to the police and police diaries, even in the course of the trial, as set out in Sections 162 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Division Bench, therefore, should have refrained from disclosing in its order, material contained in these diaries and statements, especially when the investigation in the very case was in progress. It should also have refrained from making any comments on the manner in which investigation was being conducted by the CBI, looking to the fact that the investigation was far from complete. Any observations which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made. Ordinarily the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation. Of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences. We say no more. However, we clarify that certain directions given to the Director of CBI in regard to the investigation matters do not meet with our approval and may be ignored. In short the adverse comments against the CBI were, to say the least, premature and could have been avoided. Ignoring the innuendoes the court was, however, right in expressing a general view that the investigating agency is expected to act in an efficient and vigilant manner without being pressurised and in dismissing the appeal."

(x) (2009) 10 SCC 488 (D.Venkatasubramaniam and others vs. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari and another) "A short question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether it is open to the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with the statutory power of investigation by police into a cognizable offence? If such a power is available with the Court, what are the parameters for its interference?

27. This Court while observing that it was not appropriate for the High Court to issue a direction that the case should not only be investigated but a chargesheet must be submitted, held: (M.C. Abraham case5, SCC p. 660, para 18) 18. In our view the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in making this direction which deserves to be set aside. While it is open to the High Court, in appropriate cases, to give directions for prompt investigation, etc. the High Court cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report that is in accord with its views as that would amount to unwarranted interference with the investigation of the case by inhibiting the exercise of statutory power by the investigating agency. (emphasis is ours) It is worthwhile to notice that the directions in the said case were issued by the High Court of Bombay in a writ petition filed in public interest in which a grievance had been made that though the Provident Fund Commissioner has lodged a complaint against several Directors, the investigation has made no progress on account of the fact that the Directors were government servants and enjoying considerable influence. The High Court issued a series of directions which were challenged in this Court contending that the High Court was in error in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution resulting in unjustified interference of the investigation of the case. It is, therefore, clear that if the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the investigating agency to investigate the case in accord with its views as that would amount to unwarranted interference, equally no such directions could be issued in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

30. The High Court, in the instant case, did not even advert to the relevant facts. As stated in the order itself, it was more guided by the arguments made across the Bar that the police has not taken any steps to arrest the persons and seize the amounts involved in this case from the appellants though there is no such factual foundation as such laid in the petition. It has altogether ignored the counter filed by the police that the police had already examined ten witnesses within a short span of time after the registration of crime and recorded their statements.

31. The High Court, without recording any reason whatsoever, directed the police that it is obligatory on their part to record statements from witnesses, arrest, seizure of property and filing of chargesheet. It is difficult to discern as to how such directions resulting in far-reaching consequences could have been issued by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court interfered with the investigation of crime which is within the exclusive domain of the police by virtually directing the police to investigate the case from a particular angle and take certain steps which the police, depending upon the evidence collected and host of other circumstances, may or may not have attempted to take any such steps in its discretion."

(xi) (2011) 13 SCC 337 (Disha vs. State of Gujarat and others) "21. Thus, it is evident that this Court has transferred the matter to CBI or any other special agency only when the Court was satisfied that the accused had been a very powerful and influential person or State authorities like high police officials were involved and the investigation had not been proceeded with in a proper direction or it had been biased. In such a case, in order to do complete justice and having belief that it would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility, such directions have been issued.

24. In the instant case, the petitioner herself is the accused. A huge amount of Rs.60 crores has been collected from innocent persons giving them false assurances that their amount would have a high premium. It has not been alleged in the petition that any of the investors is very powerful or capable to manage the investigation against the petitioner or that the case of suicide of her husband is not being properly investigated. It is nobodys case that the police has unnecessarily harassed the petitioner; rather, the record of the case reveals that it is only after completing the investigation, that the charge-sheet has been filed against 13 persons including the petitioner. No allegation of mala fide or bias has been alleged against any investigating authority nor had it been pleaded that the charge-sheet had been filed against the petitioner without investigating the case or having any vindictive attitude towards the petitioner. In fact, the petition is based purely on mere apprehension by the petitioner. None of the grounds taken by the petitioner for transfer is tenable."

(xii) (2008) 3 SCC 542 (Divine Retreat Centre vs. State of Kerala and others) "39. The sum and substance of the above deliberation and analysis of the law cited leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the police officers whose powers in that field are unfettered so long as the power to investigate into the cognizable offences is legitimately exercised in strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code. However, we may hasten to add that unfettered discretion does not mean any unaccountable or unlimited discretion and act according to ones own choice. The power to investigate must be exercised strictly on the condition of which that power is granted by the Code itself.

40. In our view, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot change the investigating officer in the midstream and appoint any agency of its own choice to investigate into a crime on whatsoever basis and more particularly on the basis of complaints or anonymous petitions addressed to a named Judge. Such communications cannot be converted into suo motu proceedings for setting the law in motion. Neither are the accused nor the complainant or informant entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be interested.

41. It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code."

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records, including the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel.

7. A Member of Parliament, who is a leader of a political movement, has come before this Court, by way of this Writ Petition, under the style "Public Interest Litigation", knocking the doors of justice for giving a direction to the Government to form a Forensic Expert Team headed by Thiru. 'Padmabushan' Prof. Chandrasekaran, the Former Director of Forensic Department, Chennai, to assist the investigation of the death of Ilavarasan's case.

8. According to the petitioner, Ilavarasan's death has created several suspicions; the nature of death, scene of occurrence, post-mortem certificates, Inquest Report, letter alleged to have been written by Ilavarasan and other relevant materials necessarily need to be examined by an independent Forensic expert and, hence, there is every need to have a familiar Forensic expert, by name, Padmabushan Prof.Chandrasekaran to assist the investigation of the case to find out the truth behind the death of Ilavarasan.

9. Before deciding the issue involved in this Writ Petition, it is necessary to first decide as to what is meant by Public Interest Litigation ?

10. Public Interest Litigation or PIL is a litigation for the protection of the pubic interest. Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India contain a tool which directly joints the public with judiciary. PIL may be introduced in a court of law by the Court itself suo motu, rather than the aggrieved party or any other third party. For the exercise of the court's jurisdiction, it is unnecessary for the victim of the violation of his or her rights to personally approach the court. In PIL, the right to file suit is given to a member of the public by the courts through judicial activism. Public Interest Litigation should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendetta.

11. Also, PIL is not a pill or a panacea for all wrongs. It is essentially meant to protect basic human rights of the weak and the disadvantaged and was a procedure which was innovated where a public-spirited person files a petition in effect on behalf of such persons who on account of poverty, helplessness or economic and social disabilities could not approach the court for relief. There have been, in recent times, increasingly instances of abuse of PIL. Therefore, there is a need to re-emphasize the parameters within which PIL can be resorted to by a petitioner and entertained by the Court.

12. The cardinal principle in filing a Public Interest Litigation which is part of the process of participate justice and standing in civil litigation of that pattern must have liberal reception at the judicial doorsteps is required to be considered. On the other hand, it is also to be noted that it may open floodgates to the person in vexatious nature. Over recent years successive decisions of the Courts in India have a liberalised approach as to affording a hearing to any person with a real interest in the relevant controversy. When the floodgates of litigation are opened to some new class of controversy by a decision, it is notable how rarely one can discern the flood that the dissentors feared.

13. The principle of entertaining a Public Interest Litigation in a criminal proceeding has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in various cases, some of which are as under.

14. In Janata Dal's case, cited supra, it is held that even if there are million questions of law to be deeply gone into and examined in a criminal case registered against specified accused persons, it is for them and them alone to raise all such questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them at the appropriate time before the proper forum and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants. The same is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Simranjit Singh Mann's case, stated above.

15. In Vinoy Kumar's case referred to above, the Apex Court has held that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. The relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person invoking the jurisdiction. The exception to the general rule is only in cases where the writ applied for is a writ of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest. It is a matter of prudence, that the court confines the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where legal wrong or legal injuries are caused to a particular person or his fundamental rights are violated, and not to entertain cases of individual wrong or injury at the instance of third party where there is an effective legal aid organisation which can take care of such cases. Even in cases filed in public interest, the court can exercise the writ jurisdiction at the instance of a third party only when it is shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief.

16. In Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII)'s case cited above, the Apex Court has held that public interest litigation is meant for the benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the court. PILs are not meant to advance the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of a public interest litigation and to fight a legal battle. The liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the established procedure of law under the Constitution, criminal procedure and other cognate statutes. PIL is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings.

17. Keeping the above principles and guidelines in mind, if we look at the present case, it is to be seen as to whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person to advance the cause of a particular matter when the parents of the deceased are already fighting for it and they can also come before this Court as parties aggrieved and have a legal right to enforce the same. Therefore, the question as to whether the case on hand is a PIL or not is a matter to be examined in the given circumstances. Of course, the matter in a sensitive way has given some dimension to the public at large raising certain suspicion about the death of the deceased Ilavarasan and investigation in this regard has already started by now.

18. The respondents, in their counter, have taken a stand to the following effect :

"The investigation of the suspicious death of Ilavarasan was entrusted with Thiru.Sampath, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Post-mortem was conducted by a team of three Doctors on 05.07.2013. Viscera taken from the dead body of Ilavarasan was sent to the Forensic Science lab for chemical analysis and further examination. All the events stated by the petitioner and other events related to the case in respect of the death of Ilavarasan is presently under investigation by the Police Department. The State Government has appointed an one-member Commission of Inquiry comprising of Justice Thiru.S.R.Singavaravelu, Retired Judge of the High Court of Madras to enquire into the facts and circumstances leading to the death of Ilavarasan, in G.O.Ms.No.670, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, dated 08.07.2013. Forensic experts are also involved in the investigation, which is duly monitored by the District Superintendent of Police, Dharmapuri. Utmost care is being taken during the investigation and the Police Department gets all the required assistance from the Forensic Science Department. A separate wing of Forensic Sciences Department, having a vast background was started in 1849, after having changed in many colours in its development. Now, it consists of 14 specialised analytical divisions, inclusive of Anthropology, Ballistics, Biology, Toxicology and DNA Serology to fulfill the need of various units of Police Department. Forensic Sciences Department examines/analyses/compares the material objects/clue materials related to crime/civil cases referred by Courts/Police Officers/Medical Officers and conducts scientific examination required by Government cases referred by its Departments, Civil Courts and other agencies. The main objective of this institution is to render quality scientific service to all types of criminal cases for the cause of justice to prove innocence/guilt by employing classical as well as modern scientific technologies/equipments. Forensic Department has existed even before 1849. The oldest traceable report of this Department is dated 30.10.1849. The "Chemical Examiners Labarotory" for the police purpose (1859) and the "Prohibition & Excise Laboratory" for revenue purpose (1886) and establishment of scientific sections under police (1905) have crossed different administrative changes and been merged to become State Forensic Science Laboratory (1959) and in its present form as Forensic Sciences Department in 1984. At present, it is functioning as an independent Department under the direct control of Home Department of Government of Tamil Nadu. During the year 2011, the Forensic Sciences Department has efficiently analysed 2,52,851 articles pertaining to 64,961 criminal cases. The main Laboratory is located in Chennai with 15 divisions viz., Anthropology, Ballistics, Biology, Chemistry, Documents, Excise, Explosives, Instruments, Narcotics, Physics, Photography, Prohibition, Research and Development (R & D), Serology and Toxicology. Highly qaulified and competent scientists are heading the above divisions and they are well-experienced in handling the present case. Hence, there is no necessity for a team headed by Professor Chandrasekaran, Retired Forensic Director to assist the investigation of the suspicious death of Ilavarasan, as a competent team in the Forensic Department is already under way. Further, the Department will utilize all the services of the concerned experts, if needed, in the investigation. There will be no lacuna in the investigation and the investigation is properly monitored by the Superintendent of Police of Dharmapuri District. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner cannot be complied with and that the Writ petition is liable to be rejected."

19. When that being the clear stand and position of the State/respondents and a person with locus standi having a legal right is not before this Court, the law will take its own course in the sphere of criminal justice system and the process to be adopted therein. The Government has come out with a clear stand of keeping every system in order, including the forensic expertise and, in a circumstance where more than what is required to be available, the Government can on its own find out the truth by choosing the expertise if necessary. Further, the Government is at its wisdom to decide as to what type of expertise is to be availed to bring out the truth in case of any doubt or suspicion. In this case, the parents of the deceased or any other person or other close relatives of the deceased are the affected parties and it is for them to approach the Court, otherwise, the principle, as stated above in a number of decisions of the Supreme Court that no third party public interest litigation in a criminal matter should be entertained would be violated.

20. The Supreme Court, while considering a Public Interest Litigation filed by Members of Parliament concerned with the criminal investigation of a case in Rajiv Ranjan Singh "Lalan" (VIII), cited above, praying for change of Public Prosecutors and constitution of an appropriate Bench, has laid down a principle that Public Interest Litigation is meant for the benefit of the lost and lonely and it is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the court and is not meant to advance the political gain and also settle their scores under the guise of a Public Interest Litigation and to fight a legal battle. It further held that the liberty of an accused cannot be taken away except in accordance with the established procedure and other cognate statutes and that a Public Interest Litigation is totally foreign to pending criminal proceedings.

21. In the case of State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and others, cited above, the Supreme Court viewed that there is a clear-cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of investigation of an offence, which is exclusively reserved for the executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The executive which is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation is obliged to prevent crime and if an offence is alleged to have been committed, it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates and finds an offence having been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Further, it is held that once the investigation is completed and the investigating officer submits a report to the court, requesting the court to take cognizance of the offence, the police function of investigation comes to an end. The adjudicatory function of the judiciary is to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if so, whether by the person or persons charged with the crime by the police in their report to the court, and to award adequate punishment.

22. While referring to a case in King Emperor vs. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, which was referred to in S.N.Basak's case above, the Privy Council has observed that in India, as has been shown, there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities and it would, as Their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the court. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course, subject to the right of the court to intervene in an appropriate case when moved under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code to give directions in the nature of habeas corpus.

23. Thus, the above position exposes the scope of interference of the judiciary in a matter concerned with investigation and alleged cognizance on the crime, while exercising the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

24. In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union case, the Supreme Court has held that if a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what belongs to any one of the 660 million of this country (at that point of time), the door of the court will not be ajar for him. But, if he belongs to an organization which has special interest in the subject-matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busybody, he cannot be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remain to be considered.

25. In the case of Director, CBI and others vs. Niyamavedi, the Supreme Court observed that of late, the tendency to interfere in the investigation is on the increase and courts should be wary of its possible consequences, however, with a clarification that certain directions given to the Director of CBI in regard to investigation matters do not meet with the approval. It is further held therein that any observation which may amount to interference in the investigation, should not be made and that ordinarily, the Court should refrain from interfering at a premature stage of the investigation as that may derail the investigation and demoralise the investigation.

26. In the above backdrop, it is to be examined whether the petitioner is an aggrieved person to espouse the cause of a common issue, though it may be larger, when the incident took place in a village and when it assumed a greater dimension creating communal problems for the greater issues of discrimination on the basis of caste and creed.

27. In this context, it is to be stated that sometimes, Public Interest Litigation can be aimed to achieve the benefit of the last and lonely and those whose social backwardness is the reason for non-access to the court. If there is any occasion to go before the court to file a Public Interest Litigation to redress a common grievance on social issues, without any political gain and popularity, when it is done in the right spirit to bring out the social issues to the court, instead of looking into the technical aspects, the Supreme Court, on many occasions, has taken up such litigations and granted relief to the public, at large. When a Parliamentarian has taken up such a cause without any political gain and popularity and only with a cause to eliminate discrimination and obnoxious situation prevailing in the society, it cannot be said that Public Interest Litigation is filed for the sake of popularity and personal gain. Even so, the decision in Vinoy Kumar's case lays down that it should be shown that the legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determined class of persons is, by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief. However, as this case has its own sensitivities, we proceed to decide the matter on merits.

28. While that being the position, the prayer sought for by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to form a Forensic Expert Team headed by Thiru. 'Padmabushan' Prof. Chandrasekaran, the Former Director of Forensic Department, Chennai to assist the investigation of the death of Ilavarasan's case is a matter of criminal investigation. Already, this Court has taken serious note of the case concerned and ordered re-postmortem and there also, certain Forensic experts have been a part of it. Now, the investigation has proceeded with further stages, i.e. the nature of death, scene of occurrence, post-mortem certificate, Inquest report and further proceeded to adjudicate the matter before the appropriate forum and trial. Then the truth will triumph ultimately.

29. It is true that experts could be allowed to participate to explain all their expertise to the investigation. But, in the given circumstances, the respondents have come out with a clear stand that teams of experts are available with them and all other mechanisms are devised to aid them. Giving expertise as claimed by the petitioner would result in some kind of interference in the investigation process. But, if the very same expertise is not available with the respondents, definitely, it is for them to invite the Prof. Chandrasekaran, a 'Parmabushan' awardee for his meritorious service in the Forensic department, to assist the investigation of the death of Elavarasan.

30. Therefore, we feel that though the prayer of the petitioner is only to occasion a clear investigation, the same will rest with the respondents and only in case of any kind of bias or lack of certain process, the petitioner can claim such assistance from experts. Now, the investigation is in the premature stage, having the initial process already started, and, it may be in the future course, if there is anything lacking in the investigation process and there is a need of Forensic expertise, it is always open to the petitioner or the parents of the deceased or his relatives to come before this court.

31. Article 17 of the Constitution of India contemplates "abolition of untouchability". In the terms of the said Article, "Untouchability" is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden. The enforcement of any disability arising out of "Untouchability" shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.

32. In the present case, the above mandate serves as a fundamental right. This Court, in a recent decision in Ramesh v.State, represented by the District Collector, Dharmapuri, in H.C.P.No.1265 of 2013, by an order dated 10.07.2013, while observing "Despite this State being the forerunner in social reforms, despite its boasting of the tallest leaders in support of the cause, the infamous 'Dharmapuri incidents' have demonstrated that we still are to rid our minds of the cobwebs of caste and communal prejudice. The death of Elavarasan is a sad sequel", has ordered for re-post-mortem on the body of the deceased Elavarasan, whose death has become the limelight all over the State.

33. Before parting with, we observe that the petitioner has suggested a very eminent forensic expert, who has been awarded with Padmabushan by our country and he is a person respected by every section of the society and he will extend maximum assistance if really his expertise is required, but it is not for this Court to give any direction to the Government in this regard, which, in fact, is open to the Government for taking such a decision and, if it is so taken, the grievance of the petitioner as well as the affected persons will be redressed.

34. For the foregoing reasons and discussions coupled with the stand taken by the Government in their counter as to the ensuring of fair and proper investigation regarding the nature and cause of Elavarasan's death by eminent forensic teams, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner's prayer to form a Forensic expert team headed by 'Padmabushan' awardee Prof.Chandrasekaran to assist the death of Elavarasan's case, cannot be acceded to in toto. However, it is open to the respondents to invite Prof. Thiru. Chandrasekaran to extend his expertise in the investigation in the case of Elavarasan's death.

35. With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

Index : Yes							(V.D.P.,J.)    (C.T.S.,J)
Internet : Yes							27-08-2013

abe/dixit



To :
1. 	The Home Secretary,
	Government of Tamil Nadu,
	Secretariat,
	Fort St. George,
	Chennai 600 009.

2.	The Director General of Police,
	Tamil Nadu Police Head Quarters,
	Mylapore,
	Chennai 600 004.

3.	The District Collector,
	District Collector Office,
	Dharmapuri District.

4.	The Superintendent of Police,
	Office of the Superintendent of Police,
	Dharmapuri District.

5.	The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
	Coimbatore Railway Division,
	Coimbatore.

6.	The Inspector of Police,
	Dharmapuri Railway Police Station,
	Dharmapuri.




























									V.DHANAPALAN,J.
										AND
									C.T.SELVAM,J.   

										    abe/dixit










								W.P.No.18790/2013 













								     Dated:   27-08-2013

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court