NAVKIRAN SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 02-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NA VKIRAN SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
JULY 2, 1995 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 32. 
Public Interest Litigation-Kidnapping and murder of advocates-Reply 
C filed by State unsatisfactory-Police filing "untraced" reports accepted by 
Magistrate by cryptic Order-Senior Officer of CBI to investigate the kidnap-
ping of Advocates-Direction issued to render all help and assistance to 
CBI-State to provide security to all those advocates who genuinely ap-
prehend danger to their lives from militants/anti social elements in the 
State-Recommendation by the District Judge or Registrar High Court may 
D be treated as genuine and the State Government may consider the same 
sympathetically. 
E 
F 
A letter-petition filed by the Petitioners, who were practising Advo-
cates, was treated as a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
India. The petition highlighted the failing of the rule of law at the hands 
of State Administration and its law enforcing agencies, more prominently 
the place and paramilitary forces, especially with regard to the kidnapping 
of Advocates in the State and their subsequent elimination. 
It was prayed in the petition that the persons responsible for killing 
of the advocates be suitably punished, appropriate compensation should 
be paid to the kith and kin of kidnapped advocates by the State and 
protection and security cover be given to those advocates who happen to 
conduct cases of TADA, police excesses and human-rights violations. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that in spite of the 
G best efforts made to trace the kidnapped advocates no clue was found; and 
that "untraced" report was filed which was accepted by the concerned 
Magistrate. 
Disposing the petition, this Court 
H 
HELD : 1.1. This Court is neither satisfied with the reply filed by the 
726 
NAVKIRANSINGHv. STATEOFPB.[KULDJPSINGH,J.] 
727 
State nor with the concerned Magistrates who accepted the "untraced" A 
reports. It is necessary to have further investigation by an independent 
agency which is not under the influence of the State police and other 
authorities responsible for the law and order in the State. No citizen of this 
Court much less the advocates who are protectors of human rights can be 
permitted to be kidnapped and eliminated in the manner it is alleged. In B 
any case this court is unable to accept the version of the State that its 
machinery including the police is not in a position to trace culprits respon-
sible for the kidnapping of the advocates. [731-D-E] 
1.2. The CBI is directed to appoint a senior officer to hold investiga-
tion/inquiry into the kidnapping of the advocates. The Chief Secretary, C 
Home Secretary, Director General of Police of the State are directed to 
render all help and assistance to the CBI in conducting the investigation. 
[731-F-G) 
2. The .State must provide security to all those advocates who genuine-
ly apprehend danger to their lives from militants/antisocial elements in the D 
State. If the request for security is recommended by the district ju_dge of 
the District or the Registrar of the High Court it may be treated as genuine 
and the State Government may consider the same sympathetically. 
(731-H, 732-A] 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 
242-258 of 1994. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
R.S. Sodhi for the Petitioners. 
K.T.S. Tnlsi Additional Solicitor General, and R.S. Suri for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
KULDIP SINGH, J. A letter-petition dated May 29, by Navkiran 
Singh and 16 other advocates practising in the Punjab and Haryana High G 
Court at Chandigarh and various other places in punjab voicing their 
concern over the kidnaping/elimination of advocates in the State of Punjab 
was addressed to the Chief Justice of India. Copies thereof were sent to 
all the Judges of the Supreme Court. A note was received from the 
residential office of one of us (Kuldip Singh, J .) desiring that the letter be H 
728 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
treated as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, if 
permitted under the Rules, and be placed before an appropriate Bench. 
The petition was examined by the PIL-Cell of the Supreme Court and it 
was decided to treat the letter-petition as a petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution of India. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Paras 3 &
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.