S. NAMBI NARAYANAN versus SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 14-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
S. NAMBI NARAYANAN
v.
  SIBY MATHEWS & OTHERS ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art. 21 – Malicious investigation –
Indiscriminate arrest of scientist – Compensation – Allegation of
leakage of official secrets and documents of ISRO by scientists –
Arrest of appellant-scientist, alleging espionage against scientists
of IRSO – Appellant suffered custody for almost fifty days –
Meanwhile, investigation by Special Investigation Team (SIT)
handed over to CBI – Report by CBI that allegations not proved
and were false – All accused discharged – In view thereof, decision
by the State Government to conduct re-investigation – Challenge
to, by the appellant – Supreme Court quashed the order of re-
investigation and suggested action against the Police officers –
However, the State Government issued an order closing the case –
Rounds of litigation – Division bench of the High Court held that
no action to be taken against the officers who were held allegedly
responsible by CBI for appellant’s illegal arrest – On appeal, held:
When person is confined within four walls of a police station or
lock up, he suffers mental agony – There may not be infliction of
physical pain but definitely there is mental torture – Reputation of
an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity
– Appellant was a successful scientist having national reputation –
Lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest and put the
appellant in police custody, made the appellant to undergo immense
humiliation, harassment and immeasurable anguish – His liberty
and dignity were jeopardized – Entire prosecution initiated by the
police was malicious – State police was dealing with an extremely
sensitive case and after arresting the appellant and others, the State,
on its own, transferred the case to CBI – Criminal law cannot be set
in motion without any basis, on some kind of fancy or notion –
Public law remedy warrants grant of compensation – Issuance of
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
direction to the State to pay Rs. 50 lakhs as compensation to the
appellant – Committee headed by former judge of Supreme Court
to be constituted to take appropriate steps against the erring
officials.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The appellant was arrested and he has suffered
custody for almost fifty days. His arrest has been seriously
criticized in the closure report of the CBI. From the report, the
harassment and mental torture faced by the appellant is obvious.
When person is confined within four walls of a police station or
lock up, he suffers mental agony. There may not be infliction of
physical pain but definitely there is mental torture. Reputation of
an individual is an insegregable facet of his right to life with dignity.
[Paras 29, 33, 35] [65-C-D; 74-A, F-G]
1.2 The entire prosecution initiated by the State police was
malicious and it has caused tremendous harassment and
immeasurable anguish to the appellant. It is not a case where the
accused is kept under custody and, eventually, after trial, he is
found not guilty. The State police was dealing with an extremely
sensitive case and after arresting the appellant and some others,
the State, on its own, transferred the case to the Central Bureau
of Investigation. After comprehensive enquiry, the closure report
was filed. The submission by the State of Kerala as well as by the
other respondents that the fault should be found with the CBI
but not with the State police, for it had transferred the case to the
CBI, is to be rejected. The criminal law was set in motion without
any basis. It was initiated, if one is allowed to say, on some kind
of fancy or notion. 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. This situation invites
the public law remedy for grant of compensation for violation of
the fundamental right envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution. In such a situation, it springs to life with immediacy.
It is because life commands self-respect and dignity. It can be
stated with certitude that the fundamental right of the appellant
under Article 21 has been gravely affected. [Para 31, 36]
[72-D-H; 73-A; 75-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.