Teen’s suicide in Thanjavur: SC rejects TN govt appeal against HC order, allows CBI to probe

The top court, however, issued notice on grievances expressed against certain observations in the HC order against the state police.

“Issue notice returnable in four weeks. Counter-affidavit to be filed in two weeks. Rejoined in one week. In the meanwhile, investigation will continue in terms of the impugned order,” the bench ordered.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by Tamil Nadu’s Director General of Police, challenging the January 31, 2022 order of the Madurai bench of Madras HC, which transferred the probe to CBI.

At the outset, the bench pointed out that there were two aspects of the matter: first, about certain observations in the impugned judgement; and second, transfer of the probe to CBI.

Justice Khanna asked senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who was representing the state government, which of these was the State aggrieved by.

Rohatgi replied that he was aggrieved by both. At this, Justice Khanna said, “As far as that is concerned, really speaking, in view of what all has happened, (a) number of things which have happened, may not be appropriate for us to interject the investigation by CBI.”

The bench said it will issue notice on the question of observations in the judgement.

“Mr Rohatgi, we have gone through the matter; we can understand. Therefore, we have said we will issue notice on the other issue,” Justice Khanna added.

Rohatgi said, “This was not a case which had any other ramifications. Unfortunately, a case of suicide by poison. The HC interferes and day-to-day orders are passed — that police should do this today, do this tomorrow…. The dying declaration is on record. Is it not an exceptional case in the light of the decision in the State of West Bengal vs D K Jain?”

“This is not a case which should reflect on police,” he submitted. “This is not a case where some sides are being taken. It is not a political issue, or any other issue for that matter. Why such a big issue is being created about it? Every day the HC is passing orders…”

The bench did not agree and said the HC doesn’t pass orders just like that. It reiterated that it will examine the other aspect.

As senior advocate P Wilson, who also appeared for the State, sought to question the HC order, Justice Khanna remarked, “As far as investigation by CBI (is concerned), there is a lot of things which have happened in between. Let it go on. You have collected evidence, that be passed on to CBI.”

“As far as certain observations against the police and certain observations which go on to the merit of the matter, we don’t want to elaborate at this stage. We have ourselves said we are issuing notice,” the court added.

Wilson said the state government was not a party in the proceedings. But Justice Khanna said that “police is a party”.

Wilson also sought to touch upon the question of consent for CBI probe. But the bench said, “When the HC passes an order, the question of consent of the state government does not arise.”

Rohatgi contended that the prayer in the petition was to transfer the probe to the Crime Branch. “There was no prayer for CBI probe,” he submitted. “State is not made a party. And just because of that so-called conversion issue, this has happened. There is no such issue [conversion].”

Justice Khanna said, “Mr Rohatgi, (in) some cases, sometimes, what transpires during pendency of the petition also weighs with the court when it passes the order. So this is one such case. Don’t make it a prestige issue…. It’s the HC which has exercised that jurisdiction…. If you want, we can elaborate…. We are deliberately not doing that because we are keeping the matter on the first issue (about observations in HC order).”

Wilson contended that “no opportunity was given”, and also “no time to file counter affidavit was given”. He said, “We are not against allowing this transfer of investigation to CB-CID…. What happened is, it all started with (the petition for) transfer of case to CB-CID. They never sought for a CBI (probe) at all.”

Wilson said the demand for CBI probe was raised orally during the arguments. “There is no allegation at all. (The) Learned judge did not post the case for a final hearing…what he posted…is only for getting a report of the viscera…from the laboratory,” Wilson said.

“Without even waiting for that report, straightaway the learned judge, no pleadings, nothing, we were taken by surprise…”.

But the court did not seem impressed and said, “We are satisfied on that. We are not going to interfere.”

Wilson continued to oppose and said that the roster of the judge concerned did not envisage him to hear the matter, and that he must have placed it before the Chief Justice. “Roster has been violated…. Once it comes to transfer of investigation to CBI, he ought to place it before the Chief Justice, and CJ will place it before the judge (concerned),” he submitted.