(2018) 16 SCC 409
Order dated 16-8-2017
(Before Jagdish Singh Khehar, C.J. and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017
1. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states, that he has no objection to the National Investigation Agency carrying out the investigation, subject to this Court's ensuring that the investigation is fair. To ensure that the investigation carried out by the National Investigation Agency is fair, we consider it just and appropriate to direct, that the National Investigation Agency shall carry out the said investigation under the guidance of a retired Judge of this Court, namely, Mr Justice R.V. Raveendran.
2. Mr Justice R.V. Raveendran shall be paid a consolidated fee of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) for a sitting with National Investigation Agency at Bangalore, and Rs 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakhs only) per day for travelling outside Bangalore, apart from reimbursement of all travelling, boarding, lodging and secretarial expenses, while discharging the responsibility entrusted to him. The Government of India shall reimburse the same to Mr Justice R.V. Raveendran, within two weeks from the date of submission of the bills by his Lordship.
3. We make it clear to the parties, that before hearing the matter finally on merits, this Court shall require the presence of the girl concerned, namely, Akhila, the daughter of Respondent 1, and will speak to her in camera before taking a final decision. Post for further consideration after the final investigation report is placed on the record of this case.
(2018) 16 SCC 410
Order dated 30-10-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to modify the order dated 16-8-2017 and accordingly direct the presence of the daughter of the first respondent at 3.00 p.m. on 27-11-2017. We may further add that this Court shall speak to her not in camera but in open court.
5. We will be failing in our duty if we do not note the submission of Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the National Investigation Agency and Mr Shaym Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent that in a case of the present nature when there is material with regard to a pattern of indoctrination, the choice of the person should not be treated as absolute for guiding the jurisdictional spectrum of habeas corpus. It is additionally urged that having regard to the antecedents of the petitioner (who claims to be the husband of the daughter of the first respondent) and his association with Popular Front of India, his petition should not be straight away allowed on the basis of the interaction with the lady until the larger issue is decided. The larger issue that has been focused is centred on the antecedents of the petitioner and his association with Popular Front of India. Be it stated that we have noted the submission of Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel as he has urged it today. Mr Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has, however, objected to the allegations made against the petitioner.
6. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel undertakes that the first respondent shall produce his daughter before this Court at the time and date fixed by this Court i.e. on 27-11-2017 at 3.00 p.m.
7. Any interim protection that was given to the family of Respondent 1 shall continue until further orders. List on 27-11-2017 at 3.00 p.m.
(2018) 16 SCC 411
Order dated 27-11-2017
(Before Dipak Misra, C.J. and A.M. Khanwilkar and Dr D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.)
SLP (Crl.) No. 5777 of 2017
8. Heard Mr Kapil Sibal and Ms Indira Jaising, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the NIA; Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 and Mr P.A. Noor Muhamed, learned counsel for Respondents 7 and 8.
9. The matter was heard at length, keeping in view our earlier order dated 30-10-2017. At present, we intend to pass a brief interim order, keeping open all the issues that were raised and stated in the previous order.
10. Mr Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the first respondent, pressed his application (Crl. MP No. 124312 of 2017) and submitted that the Court should interview Akhila alias Hadiya in camera and not in open court. During the course of hearing, the debate continued in many a sphere but, as stated earlier, today we are not inclined to dwell upon the same but keep the matter pending.
11. After due deliberation, we thought it appropriate to interact with Akhila alias Hadiya and we have accordingly interacted with her in Court. We were told that though she can communicate in English, she may not be able to effectively articulate in that language. Hence, we requested Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, who also represents the State of Kerala to assist in translating the questions posed to her in Court and the answers given by her.
12. The range of questions that we posed basically pertained to her qualifications, interest in studies, perception of life and what she intends to do in future. In response to our queries, she responded by stating that she has passed Class X from Higher Secondary School in K.V. Puram, Vaikom in Kottayam District and thereafter she was prosecuting her BHMS course in Shivaraj Homeopathy Medical College in Salem in the State of Tamil Nadu. She has also stated that she intends to continue her internship/housemanship which she had left because of certain reasons and her ambition is to become a full-fledged homeopathic doctor. She has expressed her desire to stay in the hostel and complete the course in the said college, if a seat is made available.
13. In the above view, we direct, as desired by her, that she be taken to Salem so as to enable her to pursue her internship/housemanship. We also direct the college to admit her and to allow the facility of a room or a shared room in the hostel as per practice to enable her to continue her internship/housemanship afresh. Be it stated, she herself has stated that the duration of the internship/housemanship is likely to be for 11 months. If any formality is to be complied with, the college shall communicate with the university and the university shall accede to the same. Our directions are to be followed in letter and spirit by all concerned. Needless to say, when she stays in the hostel, she will be treated like any other student and will be guided by the hostel rules. If necessary, the expenses for pursuing the course and for the hostel shall be borne by the State of Kerala. The Dean of the College shall approach this Court if there is any problem with regard to any aspect. “Any problem” does not mean, admission in the hostel or continuance in the course.
14. We direct the State of Kerala to make all necessary arrangements so that she can travel to Salem at the earliest. She has made a request that she should be accompanied by policewomen in plain clothes. The State shall attend to the prayer appropriately. If any security problem arises, the State of Tamil Nadu shall make local arrangements for the same. We have been told that she is presently staying in Kerala Bhawan at New Delhi. Mr V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel assures this Court that she shall be permitted to stay in Kerala Bhawan till she moves to Salem.
15. We make it clear that the NIA investigation shall continue in accordance with law.
16. Let the matter be listed in the 3rd week of January, 2018.
Court Masters