IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 23405 of 2005(J)
1. NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRONT KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA TO BE REP.BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU
Dated :15/03/2007
O R D E R
K.R. UDAYABHANU, J.
W.P.(C).NO.23405 OF 2005
DATED THIS THE 15th Day of March 2007
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner who is the General Secretary of National
Development Front, Kerala, a registered organization has sought
for a writ directing the respondent, i.e. State and the Director
General of Police to order an investigation into the leaking of
Ext.P3 confidential report of Special Branch to Kummanam
Rajasekharan, Convener of Hindu Aikya Vedi. It is the case of
the writ petitioner that during the enquiry by the Marad
Commission with respect to the communal flair up that took
place on 2-5-2003 resulting in the death of nine persons, the
alleged role of the organization represented by the writ petitioner
was also a subject of reference and during the enquiry, that
Sri. Kummanam Rajasekharan, the Convener of Hindu Aikya Vedi
has deposed that then Commissioner of Police, Mrs.Neera Rawath
had submitted a report to the Government with respect to the
activities of the petitioner organization and that he claimed to
have seen the report of Mrs.Neera Rawath and that copy of the
WPC.23405/2005 -2-
same was furnished to the Commission claiming that he obtained
the same from a worker of Hindu Aikya Vedi. As directed by the
Commission, the Special Branch, Dy.S.P. produced the copy of
the report which was marked as Ext.C.17 through Mrs. Neera
Rawath who was examined through video conferencing. He has
also mentioned in the report that Iran and ISI of Pakistan are
the money sponsoring countries along with Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia to the petitioner organization. Photocopy of the report is
produced as Ext.P3 herein. The above details were also
published in the media. During the examination of Mrs.Neera
Rawath, she has mentioned that she had constituted a special
squad to assist the Special Branch to collect information about
the activities of N.D.F. It was thus that the above special report
was furnished which was of a confidential nature . According to
the petitioner, the above Special Branch report has been leaked
out and reached the hands of Kummanam Rajasekharan. The
petitioner had represented to the Chief Minister on 17-5-2005 to
conduct a thorough enquiry as to how the report reached
WPC.23405/2005 -3-
Kummanam Rajasekharan and sought for disciplinary action
against Mrs. Neera Rawath and other police officers. It is in the
absence of further effective action, the writ petitioner has
approached this Court. It is pointed out that the action of leaking
out the above document attracted Section 3(c) of the Official
Secrets Act, 1923. So also as per Section 5(2) of the Act, any
person voluntarily receiving any secret documents knowing or
having reasonable ground to believe that it is communicated in
contravention of the Act is liable to be punished. As per Section
13(3) of the Act no court shall take cognizance of any offence
under the Act unless upon complaint made by order, or under
authority from the appropriate Government etc. Rule 56 of the
Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1960 inhibits
communication of official documents unauthorisedly. Evidently,
the report has been leaked out to a non-official by somebody in
the police department.
2. Detailed counter statements has been filed as directed
by this Court on behalf of the second respondent pointing out in
WPC.23405/2005 -4-
detail the steps taken by the Government/D.G.P.in this regard.
It is submitted that the D.G.P.had ordered an internal enquiry by
the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Kozhikode
City vide order dated 19-8-2005. Later the order was modified as
it was found that an enquiry by a superior officer is required and
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range was
required to conduct an internal enquiry and furnish a report
within two weeks vide order dated 24-8-2005. It is submitted
that on the basis of the subsequent order, an interim report was
filed suggesting prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. In
the final report dated 2-9-2006 the Deputy Inspector General
has made it clear that no prosecution can be taken against those
concerned under the Official Secrets Act. It is submitted that the
finding of the enquiry do not disclose materials for a prosecution
under the Official Secrets Act. What is sated in the report of the
Special Branch is that N.D.F. which is an organization of a few
persons were receiving financial assistance from other sources
and sympathizers from Gulf countries. According to the
WPC.23405/2005 -5-
respondents, the same does not involve any official secret and
that the receipt of money from any foreign country or for any
other State will not in any way affect the friendly relations of the
foreign country with the Government of India. It is also
mentioned that there is no statement anywhere that any foreign
Government or any other State Government is giving any aid to
N.D.F. Some persons from foreign countries or any other State
giving financial assistance to N.D.F.will not affect any friendly
relations with any other countries. Already steps have been
taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the officials who
are suspected to be responsible for the leakage of Ext.P3 report.
He has also produced Ext. R2(a) order with respect to the
disciplinary proceedings against one Sub Inspector, A.S.I.of
Police, Head Constable and Police Constables numbering 8. It is
the laxity on the part of the above said officials that has resulted
in the leakage of official documents. Ext.R2(b) is the memo
issued to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who headed the
Special Squad and who submitted the report. Ext.R2(c) is the
WPC.23405/2005 -6-
correspondence from D.I.G.Kannur Range to the Inspector
General of Police, North Zone, Kozhikode as to the action taken
in this regard. It is reported therein that on the enquiry no
evidence is forthcoming to fix responsibility on any person or
persons in the matter and has specifically recommended that
there is no scope for registering a case against the officials for
the offence under the Official Secrets Act and that departmental
enquiry would suffice. Counsel for the revision petitioner has
relied on the decisions reported in State of Kerala v.
K.Balakrishnan, 1960 K.L.T.661 and Sama Alina Abdulla v.
State of Gujarat, AIR 1996 SC 569 to sustain the contention
that the document mentioned in Section 3(1)(c) need not be a
secret one for attracting the section.
3. In the instant case, I find that D.G.P. has taken
sufficient action in the matter. It is for the State to assess as to
the implication of the report of the Special Branch as to the
financial aid and as to whether it is likely to affect sovereignty
and integrity of India, security of the State or friendly relations
WPC.23405/2005 -7-
with foreign States. In the absence of any data in the above said
report and in view of Ext.R2(c) findings, I find that the direction
to register a case and investigate is not called for in the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
ks.