Supreme Court Dismisses Kerala Govt's Petition Challenging HC Direction To Pay Rs.1 Lakh Compensation To Man Illegally Detained As Maoist
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging a 2019 judgment of the Kerala High Court which directed the State to grant Rs.1 lakh compensation to a man who was illegally detained by the police on suspicion of being a Maoist.A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale dismissed the State' petition by saying, "We see...
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Kerala challenging a 2019 judgment of the Kerala High Court which directed the State to grant Rs.1 lakh compensation to a man who was illegally detained by the police on suspicion of being a Maoist.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale dismissed the State' petition by saying, "We see absolutely no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
However, the Court has left the question of law open.
The incident leading to the case took place in 2014, when a man named Shyam Balakrishnan, an author/researching residing in Wayanad district, was detained the police on suspicion of being a Maoist. On May 20, 2014, while he was travelling on his bike, two policemen in plain clothes blocked his way and removed the key of the vehicle. They took him to police station, where he was strip searched in view of several others. The police said that they are hunting for Maoists. Later, officers of 'Thunder Bolt', a special force of Kerala police to deal with Maoists, searched his home and seized his books and laptop.
All these coercive steps were taken by the police without following the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines for arrest laid down by the apex court in D K Basu case.
Alleging that the illegal arrest, search and seizure caused him agony and tarnished his reputation and violated his personal liberty and right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, Shyam Balakrishnan, who happens to be the son of a retired High Court judge, filed writ petition.
On May 22, 2015, a single bench of Justice Muhamed Mustaque allowed the petition stating that the Police "violated liberty of the petitioner by taking him to custody without satisfying that the petitioner has been involved in any cognizable offence punishable under law."
“Police cannot detain a person merely because he is a Maoist, unless Police forms a reasonable opinion that his activities are unlawful,” the singe bench observed.
In 2019, a division bench of the High Court affirmed the singe bench's judgmnet.
"We have no hesitation in holding that, in view of the primacy that is accorded under our Constitution to a person's fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty, the action of police authorities in detaining and interrogating the petitioner and thereafter searching his residence, without following the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure was wholly unjustified", held the Division Bench of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar.
The Bench added that freedom to hold a political ideology was part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
"The framers of our Constitution believed that certain freedoms are essential to enjoy the fruits of liberty and that the State shall not be permitted to trample upon these freedoms save for the pursuit of objectives that are in the larger interest of Society. As a matter of fact, the worth of a State lies in the worth of the individuals composing it and a truly free State is one where the collective liberties of its citizens are duly recognised and respected..
Accordingly, merely on a suspicion that the petitioner has embraced the Maoist ideology, he cannot be persecuted by the State authorities.", it said.
Case Title : The State of Kerala v. Shyam Balakrishnan and others |Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 20765/2019
http://scourtapp.nic.in/supremecourt/2019/28341/28341_2019_17_53_52668_Order_29-Apr-2024.pdf