Supreme Court Orders Compensation for Malicious Prosecution in ISRO Espionage Case: S. Nambi Narayanan vs. Siby Mathews (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2018
Citation: S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews, 2018 INSC 785
Judges: Dipak Misra, CJI, A. M. Khanwilkar, J., Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Can a person be compensated for the mental agony and humiliation caused by a malicious prosecution? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a former ISRO scientist who was falsely accused of espionage. The Court awarded compensation to the scientist, emphasizing the importance of protecting an individual’s dignity and reputation. This judgment highlights the judiciary’s role in providing remedies for violations of fundamental rights.

Case Background

The case began on 20 January 1994, when a Maldivian national, Mariam Rasheeda, was arrested under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The investigation led to allegations of espionage involving ISRO scientists. On 13 November 1994, a case was registered under the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923, alleging that ISRO secrets had been leaked. Following this, another Maldivian national, Fousiya Hasan, was arrested along with Mariam Rasheeda in connection with the same case.

On 15 November 1994, the investigation was taken over by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Siby Mathews, the then D.I.G. Crime of Kerala Police. Subsequently, D. Sasikumaran, an ISRO scientist, was arrested on 21 November 1994, and S. Nambi Narayanan, the appellant, was arrested on 30 November 1994, along with two other individuals. The case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 4 December 1994, following a request from the Government of Kerala and a decision by the Government of India.

The CBI submitted a report to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stating that the espionage allegations against the ISRO scientists were false. This report was accepted on 2 May 1996, and all the accused were discharged.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The CBI’s report, which stated that the espionage allegations were false, was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ernakulam, on 2 May 1996, and all accused were discharged. However, the State Government of Kerala, dissatisfied with the CBI report, issued a notification on 27 June 1996, to withdraw the case from the CBI and conduct a re-investigation. This notification was challenged by the appellant in the High Court of Kerala, which upheld the government’s decision on 27 November 1996.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, which, in the case of K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223, quashed the notification for re-investigation, holding it to be against good governance. Despite this, the State of Kerala did not take any action against the police officers involved. In 2001, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) ordered a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 as interim relief to the appellant. A division bench of the Kerala High Court, on 7 September 2012, directed the government to pay this amount.

Later, a writ petition was filed in the Kerala High Court seeking directions for the State of Kerala to take action against the erring police officers. The government, however, decided not to take any disciplinary action against the SIT members on 29 June 2011. This decision was challenged, and a single judge of the High Court quashed the government’s order, remitting the matter for reconsideration. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned the single judge’s decision, stating that the government had examined the relevant matters and that the CBI report was merely an opinion. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to several legal provisions:

• Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946: This section deals with penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Act or any order made thereunder.
• Paragraph 7 of the Foreigners Order: This likely refers to a specific provision within orders issued under the Foreigners Act, which was contravened by Mariam Rasheeda.
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923: These sections pertain to offenses related to spying and wrongful communication of official secrets.
• Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.

These provisions form the legal basis for the initial investigation and subsequent legal challenges in this case. The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes the importance of Article 21 in protecting individuals from malicious prosecution and ensuring their right to life with dignity.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution launched by the Kerala police was malicious and had a catastrophic effect on his service career, personal life, and reputation.
• He contended that the CBI, after a thorough investigation, found the allegations against him to be unsubstantiated and highlighted several lapses on the part of the Kerala Police Officers.
• The appellant expressed anguish that the State Government, instead of acting on the CBI’s recommendations, focused on further investigation against him.
• He sought compensation for the malicious prosecution, invoking the principle of constitutional tort, and requested the constitution of a committee to take action against the erring officials.
• He argued that his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated due to his wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments (Siby Mathews):

• The respondent contended that the appellant’s claim of significant contribution to the nation was a ploy to gain sympathy.
• He argued that the investigation was carried out under the supervision of senior police officers, and he had requested the transfer of the case to the CBI, indicating no mala fide intention.
• He claimed that there was sufficient evidence indicating the appellant’s involvement in espionage activities, and the arrest was necessary.
• He denied that the appellant was subjected to torture by the State police, stating that he did not take part in the interrogation and that the IB officials were the ones who interrogated the accused.
• He argued that the CBI’s claim that no incriminating records were recovered was unacceptable, as 235 documents were recovered from the accused’s house.

CBI’s Arguments:

• The CBI submitted that the Kerala Government failed to take action against the erring police officials despite highlighting their lapses and faults.
• It contended that the conduct of the police officials was criminal in nature, and the investigation by the CBI had clearly established that the State police’s investigation was full of lapses and involved illegal means such as criminal torture.
• The CBI argued that the State of Kerala could not take shelter of the doctrine of delay and laches, and action should be taken against the erring officers along with payment of compensation for the humiliation suffered by the victim.
• It argued that the State was duty bound to act upon the CBI report as that would have reflected an apposite facet of constitutional governance and respect for individual liberty and dignity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:

• Whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for the malicious prosecution and the violation of his fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Whether the State of Kerala should be directed to take action against the erring police officers who were responsible for the malicious investigation.

The Court also considered the sub-issue of whether the delay in taking action against the police officers was a valid reason for not doing so.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223 – Supreme Court of India: This case was previously decided by the Supreme Court and quashed the notification of the State of Kerala for re-investigation, holding that the said notification was against good governance.
• D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the concept of torture and the mental agony a person undergoes in custody.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260 – Supreme Court of India: This case deals with the law of arrest and the balance between individual rights and societal duties.
• Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry (1989) 1 SCC 494 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes the importance of an individual’s right to reputation.
• Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288 – Supreme Court of India: This case highlights the value of reputation as a cherished aspect of life.
• Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the role of the police and the need to ensure fair treatment of offenders.
• Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178 – Supreme Court of India: This case establishes the award of compensation against the State as an effective remedy for infringement of fundamental rights.
• Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 1 SCC 748 – Supreme Court of India: This case deals with the issue of delayed trial and the enhancement of compensation for suffering and humiliation.
• Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394 – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the CBI to argue that the State of Kerala could not take shelter of the doctrine of delay and laches.
• Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab (1994) 1 SCC 616 – Supreme Court of India: This case was relied upon by the CBI to argue that investigation can be initiated to instill confidence in the public mind.
• D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927) – Alabama Supreme Court: This case was referred to in Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry and discusses the importance of a private reputation.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223*: The Court relied on this judgment to emphasize that the Supreme Court had already quashed the re-investigation and freed the accused of all charges.
• D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. (1997) 1 SCC 416*: The Court used this case to define torture and to highlight the mental agony a person undergoes in custody, emphasizing that mental torment is as serious as physical pain.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260*: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to balance individual rights and societal duties in the law of arrest.
• Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry (1989) 1 SCC 494*: The Court referred to this case to underscore the significance of an individual’s right to reputation.
• Vishwanath Agrawal v. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal (2012) 7 SCC 288*: The Court used this case to highlight the value of reputation as a cherished aspect of life.
• Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat (1991) 4 SCC 406*: The Court cited this case to discuss the role of the police and the need for fair treatment of offenders.
• Sube Singh v. State of Haryana (2006) 3 SCC 178*: The Court relied on this case to establish that awarding compensation against the State is an appropriate remedy for the infringement of fundamental rights.
• Hardeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 1 SCC 748*: The Court referred to this case to highlight the issue of delayed trial and the enhancement of compensation for suffering and humiliation.
• Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394*: The Court used this case to reject the State’s argument that delay could be a defense for not taking action against the erring officials.
• Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association v. State of Punjab (1994) 1 SCC 616*: The Court used this case to support the argument that investigation can be initiated to instill confidence in the public mind.
• D.F. Marion v. Davis 217 Ala. 16 (Ala. 1927)*: The Court referred to this case through the judgment in Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry to highlight the importance of a private reputation.

The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the malicious prosecution and the violation of his fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed the State of Kerala to pay a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the appellant within eight weeks. The Court also constituted a committee headed by Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, to find ways and means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials. The Central Government and the State Government were directed to nominate one officer each to be part of the committee.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Malicious Prosecution: The Court strongly condemned the malicious prosecution initiated by the Kerala police, which had a devastating impact on the appellant’s life and career.
• Violation of Fundamental Rights: The Court emphasized the violation of the appellant’s fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Mental Agony and Humiliation: The Court highlighted the mental agony and humiliation suffered by the appellant due to his wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.
• CBI Report: The Court relied heavily on the CBI report, which found the allegations against the appellant to be false and highlighted the lapses on the part of the State police.
• Need for Accountability: The Court stressed the need for accountability of the erring police officials and the importance of taking appropriate action against them.
• Public Law Remedy: The Court emphasized that the violation of fundamental rights warrants a public law remedy, including the grant of compensation.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by a strong sense of justice and a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court was particularly concerned about the abuse of power by the police and the need to provide redress for victims of malicious prosecution.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments of both sides and the evidence presented, including the CBI report and the previous judgment of the Supreme Court. The Court rejected the arguments of the respondents that the investigation was done responsibly and that the appellant was not subjected to torture. The Court emphasized that the mental agony and humiliation suffered by the appellant were significant and warranted compensation. The Court also rejected the argument that delay was a valid reason for not taking action against the erring officials.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law, and it was driven by a strong sense of justice and a commitment to upholding the fundamental rights of individuals.

“The liberty and dignity of the appellant which are basic to his human rights were jeopardized as he was taken into custody and, eventually, despite all the glory of the past, he was compelled to face cynical abhorrence.”

“Reputation of an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity.”

“A human being cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public law remedy.”

Key Takeaways

• Compensation for Malicious Prosecution: The judgment establishes that individuals who have been subjected to malicious prosecution are entitled to compensation for the mental agony, humiliation, and violation of their fundamental rights.
• Accountability of Police Officers: The judgment emphasizes the need for accountability of police officers who engage in malicious investigations and highlights that delay is not a valid reason for not taking action against erring officials.
• Protection of Fundamental Rights: The judgment reaffirms the importance of protecting the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Public Law Remedy: The judgment clarifies that the violation of fundamental rights warrants a public law remedy, including the grant of compensation.
• Committee for Action: The constitution of a committee to investigate the actions of the erring police officers sets a precedent for ensuring that those responsible for malicious prosecution are held accountable.

This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving malicious prosecution and violation of fundamental rights. It provides a strong legal basis for individuals to seek redress for the harm they have suffered due to wrongful actions by the police or other state authorities.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The State of Kerala was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs to the appellant within eight weeks.
• A committee was constituted, headed by Justice D.K. Jain, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, to find ways and means to take appropriate steps against the erring officials.
• The Central Government and the State Government were directed to nominate one officer each to be part of the committee.
• The Central Government was directed to bear the costs and provide perquisites to the committee, including logistical facilities and secretarial staff.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an individual who has been subjected to malicious prosecution is entitled to compensation for the violation of their fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the State cannot avoid taking action against erring police officers by citing delay as a reason.The judgment has reinforced the concept of constitutional tort and has expanded the scope of public law remedies for the violation of fundamental rights. It has also clarified that the State has a duty to ensure accountability of its officers and to provide redress for victims of malicious prosecution.