NHRC directs Kerala Government to pay Rs. 10 lakhs to ISRO Scientist - victim of illegal detention and torture

The National Human Rights Commission, on 14 March 2001, directed the Government of Kerala to pay Rs. 10 lakhs as `immediate interim relief’ to Shri S. Nambinarayanan, a Scientist working in the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) Head Quarters in Bangalore, as compensation for gross violation of his human rights by public servants.

In October 1994, a criminal case of espionage under the Indian Official Secret Act, 1923, was initiated in which Shri Nambinarayanan was implicated as an accused along with five others. He was arrested on 30 November 1994. The case was handed over to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) on 5 December 1994. The complainant alleged illegal detention and custodial torture by officials of Kerala Police and IB and the involvement IGP (Crimes) of Kerala Police and joint Directors of IB in his illegal detention and gross violation of human rights during custody. He had also alleged vilification by the officers of Kerala Police and IB, which had led to considerable humiliation, and trauma by his entire family.

On 2 December 1994, the Government of Kerala issued a notification entrusting the investigation of the case to the CBI. He was then remanded to CBI custody till the Kerala High Court ordered his release on bail on 19 January 1995. According to the report submitted to the CBI to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam on 13 April 1996, "…the allegations of the espionage are not proved and have been found to be false…". The CBI investigation also disclosed that the accused persons had been harassed and physically abused. The medical examination, which had been conducted, gave testimony to the same. This torture was apparently inflicted to extort confessions.

Accepting the final report of the CBI, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated 2 May 1996, discharged the complainant and the other accused. However, the Kerala Police filed a Revision in the Kerala High Court challenging the complaints discharge. The Court dismissed the petition.

Inspite of these developments, the Government of Kerala took an unusual step of issuing a notification withdrawing the consent given to the CBI for investigation of the case and ordering `reinvestigation’ by a special team of Kerala police. The notification was later amended to describe the `reinvestigation’ as `further investigation’.

The complainant filed a writ petition in the Kerala High Court, which held that even though the State Government’s notification could not be quashed, it had no jurisdiction to file a complaint before a court in respect of any offence under sections 3,4 and 5 of Indian Official Secrets Act. The complainant in an appeal before the Supreme Court challenged this judgment. The Supreme Court by its judgment dated 29 April 1998 quashed the notification directing `further investigation’. It also passed strictures against the Kerala Government and observed that the subsequent notification issued by it was inconsistent with the role of a responsible Government bound by the rule of law. Accordingly, the Apex Court awarded Rs. 1.00 lakh to each of the appellants as costs to be paid by the Kerala Government.

After the conclusion of the criminal case against the complainant, he submitted a complaint on 14 October 1998 to NHRC complaining of gross violation of his human rights and seeking award of compensation.

The Commission, on considering the facts, held that the allegations of gross violation of human rights of the complainant by officers of Kerala police and IB were proved by the conclusions of the CBI report which had been upheld by the Apex Court of the country. The Government of Kerala had supported this unlawful action, which was a malafide exercise of power as held by the Supreme Court. The complainant, a senior scientist of considerable repute, whose contribution in Space Research was acknowledged, was kept under suspension for a period of 18 months on a false case foisted on him which resulted in loss of his reputation apart from the ignominy and damage to his health in addition to the considerable expenditure incurred to defend himself from the false accusation. The Commission felt that the damage done to the complainant and his family as a result of the unlawful acts was difficult to fully assess. However, the findings of the CBI, duly approved by the Supreme Court, were sufficient to prove the gross violations of his human rights by public servants.

Thus the Commission on 6 September 1999 directed the Union Home Secretary, Director, IB, Chief Secretary and DGP, Kerala to immediately conduct enquiries to identify the officers who had committed the excesses and initiate appropriate disciplinary as well as criminal action against them and submit a compliance report to the Commission. After a lapse of considerable time and vacillation, the IB, by its letter dated 29 August 2000 informed the Commission that the charge-sheets issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, had been served on 9 IB personnel. The Commission then, on 4 September 2000, issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs as well as the Government of Kerala to show cause as to why immediate interim relief’ under Section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 be not granted in favour of Shri S. Nambinarayanan .

In response, the Government of India as well as the Government of Kerala appeared before the Commission through their Counsel to submit their objections. According to the counsel for Government of India, a Civil Suit has been filed by the complainant claiming damaged amounting to Rs. 1.00 crore against the State of Kerala and the Union of India, the outcome which would be prejudiced by the award of relief by the Commission. Also the matter was subjudice and so the Commission should not grant any such relief. It was also urged that disciplinary proceedings were pending against the charge-sheeted IB officers the outcome of which might also get prejudiced by the Commission’s directions. The counsel for the State of Kerala had contended that the complaint had been made more than one year after the alleged violation of human rights and thus barred from the purview of the NHRC.

The Commission disposed off the objections raised, holding that the true scope and purport of section 18(3) of the Act and the nature of `immediate interim relief’ granted there under was to provide immediate interim relief in a case where a strong prima-facie case of violation of human rights had been made out so that the complainant need not await determination in another proceeding of the full compensation awardable or identification of the particular public servant guilty of the violation and determination of his liability in another proceeding. The amount of the `immediate interim relief’ so awarded should be adjusted in the total compensation determined as payable in a proceeding like a Civil Suit so that the same amount was not paid over twice. Regarding the bar of limitation of one year under section 36(2) of the Act, the Commission expressed its opinion that because the inquiry into the facts had been concluded with the findings of the Supreme Court and no independent inquiry was required to be conducted by the Commission, the period of one year could commence only from 29 April 1998 when the Supreme Court gave its judgment. Even if the complaint had been filed earlier, i.e., within one year of the complainants arrest on 390 November 1994, the matter in the Commission would have to be kept pending because of the pendency of proceedings in the competent courts till its final conclusion in the Supreme Court.

Expressing the view that the Civil Suit would determine the precise terms of the monetary compensation to which the complainant was entitled, the Commission directed that the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs should be paid to Shri S. Nambinarayanan by the Government of Kerala as `immediate interim relief’. This amount is to be paid within two months and compliance reported to the Commission. The State of Kerala has also been directed to report the action taken against its delinquent officers as directed by the Commission on 6 September 1999.