Monis K Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **MONIS K THOMAS AGED 48 YEARS, S/O LATE K.T THOMAS, NO.28/1539/A,NN66, NETHAJI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.** **SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SMT.LIZZ MARIYA ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** - **2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** **3 THE INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, 8TH FLOOR,NBCC CENTER, PLOT NO.2, COMMUNITY CENTER,OKHLA PHASE 1, NEW DELHI.110020.** - **4 THE KERALA NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, RED CROSS ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695035.** **SRI. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2,** **DR. ABRAHAM P MEACHINKARA, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R3, SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R4** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 1st day of February 2021** ## **S.MANIKUMAR,CJ** Petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing the State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and the State Police Chief, Police Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively, to conduct an investigation into the complaint raised by the petitioner in Exhibits P9 and P10. 2. Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus to the Indian Nursing Council, represented by its President, New Delhi and the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, represented by its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram, respondents 3 and 4 respectively, to take immediate steps to find out the agencies which advertise and conduct Post Basic B.Sc and M.Sc Nursing courses otherwise than by regular courses and to take immediate steps to stop the advertisements and the conduct of courses by distant education and correspondence courses. 3. Brief facts leading to the writ petition are as follows; In the instant public interest writ petition, petitioner is seeking for a direction to the WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 3 respondents to take immediate action against the persons, who are advertising and conducting Post Basic B.Sc and M.Sc Nursing courses, despite the fact that those courses are regular courses of two year duration and that a student has to undergo 1700 hours of clinical practical for Post Basic B.Sc Nursing course and 2300 hours of clinical practical for M.Sc nursing course. 4. According to the petitioner, Exhibit P1 reply given by Indian Nursing Council, represented by its President, New Delhi, the 3[rd] respondent, specifically states that there is no correspondence or distant education programs for Post Basic B.Sc nursing course and M.Sc nursing course in the country. Exhibits P3 to P6 are the advertisements in various Malayalam Dailies with respect to the conduct of correspondence courses for the aforementioned Degrees. Exhibits P7 and P8 are the information received from the official website of the 3[rd] respondent with respect to two Post Basic B.Sc Nursing students, in which names of the institutes where the students are studying are not shown and at the same time, it can be seen that they are working at different hospitals. 5. In such a situation, petitioner has preferred Exhibits P9 to P12 representations, by registered post, to respondents 1 to 4. But no action has been taken on those representations. According to the petitioner, the 3[rd] respondent has got a statutory duty and obligation to maintain the standard WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 4 and dignity of nursing education, to prevent the advertisement and the conduct of unauthorized Post Basic B.Sc nursing and M.Sc nursing courses. Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is filed. 6. Inviting attention of this Court to the information furnished by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi dated 13[th] April, 2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Mr.George Sebastian, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that no correspondence courses have been conducted by Indian Nursing Council. However, the private respondents, have made advertisements in the newspapers, as evident from Exhibits P3 to P6. 7. Referring to Exhibits P7 and P8, Mr.George Sebastain, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that though Indian Nursing Council, in Exhibit P1 dated 13[th] April, 2014, information furnished to the petitioner, has stated that distant education mode run by IGNOU, is recognized for study centres, certain students have taken up P.B.B.Sc course from 1.1.2015 to 31.9.2017, from the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, which is indicative of the fact that there is a distant education in respect of the abovesaid programme, which according to him, is contrary to the Nursing Council Regulations. 8. Per contra, Mr.Abraham P. Meachinkara, learned standing counsel for Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, respondent No.3, reiterates the answer furnished under Right to Information Act, 2005, extracted supra. WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 5 ## 9. Information furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads thus: **S.No. Information required by applicant Reply by INC** 4 Photo copy/copies of the approval for It is clarified that M.Sc.(N) & in conducting correspondence course in Post Post P.B.B.Sc.(N)are regular Basic Nursing and M.Sc Nursing Courses and programmes. Only P.B.B.Sc.(N) true copies of the advertisement released by programme through distance Josco Educational Consultancy, Marian education mode run by IGNOU is Education Consultancy and Chairman, INC recognized for study centres Bangalore offering correspondence course in list of which is available on INC Panchayat.B.B.Sc. Nursing & M.Sc. Nursing, website. GNM, B.Sc. Nursing published in Malayalam Manorama daily on 24.01.2014, 01.02.2014 Further it is requested to direct and 19/02/2014 respectively. contact nursing institution for copy of advertisement for nursing courses, as the said matter does not come under the INC purview. ## 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 11. Basically, writ petition seemed to have been filed based on newspapers reports, Exhibits P3 to P5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again held that a writ petition on the basis of mere newspapers reports, should not be entertained. Reference can be made to a few decisions, on public interest litigations which read thus: ## (i) In **Laxmi Raj Shetty and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu** [(1988) 3 SCC ## 319], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “32...............We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a news item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliened. A report in a newspaper is only WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 6 hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 33. It is now well-settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspapers is merely hearsay and therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. The accused should have therefore produced the persons in whose presence the seizure of the stolen money from appellant No. 2's house at Mangalore was effected or examined the press correspondents in proof of the truth of the contents of the news item. The question as to the admissibility of newspaper reports has been dealt with by this Court in **Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Femandez and Ors.** [1969] 3 SCR 603. There the question arose whether Shri George Femandez, the successful candidate returned to Parliament from the Bombay South Parliamentary Constituency had delivered a speech at Shivaji Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said: “A newspaper report without any further proof of what had actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at best a second-hand secondary evidence. It is well known that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor who edits the news item and then publishes it. In this process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may be taken into account with other evidence if the other evidence is forcible.” (ii) In **Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court** reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "At the very outset, we put it to the petitioner that a bare perusal of the petition shows that it is based entirely on newspaper reports and asked him whether before filing the petition he has taken care to verify the facts personally. His answer is in the WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 7 negative. In the writ petition all the 21 High Courts have been included as respondents and Union of India has also been impleaded as the 22[nd] respondent. We asked the petitioner what has provoked him to implead all the High Courts as respondents and he states that it is his apprehension that similar incidents may occur in other High Courts though there is no factual foundation for such appreciation. 5. After affording the full opportunity of hearing, we are satisfied that what purports to have been filed as a public interest litigation is nothing more than a "publicity interest litigation". It is writ large that it has been filed without any effort at verifying the facts by the petitioner personally." (iii) In **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India** reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: ""1. This petition purporting to be in public interest has been filed by a member of the legal fraternity seeking directions against the respondents to hand over the investigation of the case pertaining to recovery of light machine gun, which is said to have been stolen from the army according to reports published in two newspapers, to the Central Bureau of Investigation for fair investigation to ensure that the real culprits who are behind such theft of army arms and ammunition endangering the integrity and sovereignty of the country may be brought to book and action may be taken against them in accordance with law. The only basis for the petitioner coming to this Court are two newspaper reports dated 25-1-2004, and the other dated 12-2-2004. This petition was immediately filed on 16-2-2004 after the aforesaid second newspaper report appeared. On enquiry from the learned counsel, we have learnt that the petitioner is a young advocate having been in practice for a year or two. The Union of India, the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, have been arrayed as party respondents. In the newspaper reports, there is no allegation either against the Union of India or against the Chief Minister. 2. We expect that when such a petition is filed in public interest and particularly by a member of the legal profession, it would be filed with all seriousness and after doing the necessary homework WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 8 and enquiry. If the petitioner is so public-spirited at such a young age as is so professed, the least one would expect is that an enquiry would be made from the authorities concerned as to the nature of investigation which may be going on before filing a petition that the investigation be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Admittedly, no such measures were taken by the petitioner. There is nothing in the petition as to what, in fact, prompted the petitioner to approach this Court within two-three days of the second publication dated 12-2-2004, in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Further, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed its affidavit a year earlier i.e. on 7-10-2004, placing on record the steps taken against the accused persons, including the submission of the charge-sheet before the appropriate court. Despite one year having elapsed after the filing of the affidavit by the Special Secretary to the Home Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, nothing seems to have been done by the petitioner. The petitioner has not even controverted what is stated in the affidavit. Ordinarily, we would have dismissed such a misconceived petition with exemplary costs but considering that the petitioner is a young advocate, we feel that the ends of justice would be met and the necessary message conveyed if a token cost of rupees one thousand is imposed on the petitioner " (iv) In **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.** [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus: “18. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See **State of Maharashtra v. Prabhu** (1995) ILLJ 622 SC, and **Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation v. GAR Re-Rolling Mills and Anr.** [1994] 1 SCR 857. No litigant has a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. [See **Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran** (1996 CriLJ 3983)]. Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 9 19. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called as public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. It is also noticed that petitions are based on newspaper reports without any attempt to verify their authenticity. As observed by this Court in several cases newspaper reports do not constitute evidence. A petition based on unconfirmed news reports, without verifying their authenticity should not normally be entertained. As noted above, such petitions do not provide any basis for verifying the correctness of statements made and information given in the petition. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” 10. From the material on record, it could be deduced that petitioner has not verified as to whether the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No.3, is conducting any course/programme in P.B.B.Sc. Without ascertaining the above writ petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus directing State of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, and the State Police Chief, Police Head Quarters, Vellayambalam.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, respondent Nos.1 and 2, respectively, to conduct an investigation into the complaint raised by the WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 10 petitioner in Exhibits P9 and P10 respectively. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents, now impleaded, vide order dated 2[nd] February, 2021 in I.A.No.184214/2017, have submitted that none of the institutions are conducting any courses through correspondence. 12. Submission of the learned counsel for private respondents is placed on record. In the light of the above discussion, there is no need to conduct any investigation into the complaint preferred by the petitioner in Exhibits P9 and P10 respectively and consequently, there is no necessity to find out the agencies, which had advertised. Resultantly, writ petition is dismissed. **Sd/-** **S.MANIKUMAR** **CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/-** **SHAJI P.CHALY** smv **JUDGE** WP(C).No.39797 OF 2016(S) 11 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER BY THE INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL DATED 13.4.2014.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE RESOLUTIONS TAKEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30.7.2016. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 29.7.2016. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 26.7.2016 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT DATED 10.7.2016 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO ONE RENCY LUKOSE. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO ONE MEENU ANDREWS. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.8.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.**