T.G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & 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** **TUESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 5TH ASWINA, 1944** # **WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** T.G.MOHANDAS, S/O K.GOVINDA NAIK, AGED 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8/996(D), SHANTI NAGAR COLONY, KOOVAPPADAM, KOCHI-682 002. BY ADV T.G.MOHANDAS (Party-In-Person) ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME), GOVERNMENT OF KEARLA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. - 2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 010. - 3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR 670 001. SRI. TEKCHAND, SR. G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 2 :: ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 27[th] day of September, 2022 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.** The petitioner/party in person in this writ petition is a retired Engineer, an Advocate, a public worker and a media person. He is aggrieved by the non-registration of FIR for the offences committed against the Head of the State, His Excellency, the Governor of Kerala. The incidents leading to this petition took place in Kannur University in 2019 during a conference attended by the Governor of Kerala. He was intimidated and his speech was interrupted by a person on the dais and he was subjected to shouting of slogans from the audience. According to the petitioner, this was clearly an offence punishable under Section 124 IPC. It is further averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that even though the police personnel present in large numbers, did not register even an FIR against the perpetrators of the crime. The Governor was protected from physical attack by his personal security guard and ADC. ## 2. Reliefs sought for in this writ petition are as under: “I. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the respondents to issue appropriate directions to ensure registration of crime (FIR) and Investigation in case of cognizable offence WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 3 :: without delay and to take appropriate disciplinary proceedings against defaulters; II. To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to register FIR and investigate into the attempted criminal assault against Governor of State at University of Kannur on 28[th] December 2019. III. To direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to jointly or severally take disciplinary action against the delinquent police officers responsible for the failure in registering crime in relation to the attempted criminal assault against the Head of the State at University of Kannur on 28[th] December 2019 as stipulated in Sl. No. (iv) of Circular 29/2017 vide Exhibit P4.” 3. The contention raised by the petitioner is that the inaction on the part of the respondents [State of Kerala, The State Police Chief and the Station House Officer, Kannur Town Police Station] in registering criminal case in spite of a cognizable criminal offence under Section 124 of the IPC against the head of the State is highly unreasonable. According to the petitioner, the police are duty bound to register an FIR in view of a cognizable offence, which they have not done even after the passage of three years. 4. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Lalita Kumari v. State of UP**_ reported in _**(2014) 2 SCC 1**_ and submitted that the police are obliged to register and investigate the matter. WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 4 :: ## 5. It is also brought to the attention of this court that though the State Police Chief vide Circular No.29/2017 of letter No. D2175597/2017/PHQ has instructed all the police personnel to strictly adhere to the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the _**Lalita Kumari's case (supra),**_ the police failed to register an FIR in the case of attempted assault on the Governor of Kerala. 6. Circular No.29/2017 of letter No. D2-175597/2017/PHQ dated 9.11.2017 reads as under: **==> picture [431 x 366] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 5 :: **==> picture [431 x 621] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 6 :: **==> picture [436 x 591] intentionally omitted <==** WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 7 :: 7. Posed with a question as to whether there was any complaint from the office of the Hon’ble Governor, party-in-person submitted that there was no complaint. Criminal law can be set in motion by anybody. If the petitioner is in possession of acceptable evidence, he can always prefer a petition to the police. If the police has not taken any action, he cannot be said to be without remedy. There are provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which he can avail. 8. The issue regarding non-registration of FIR was considered by this court in W.P.(C) No.14316 of 2020 and by judgment dated 22[nd] July, 2020, the said writ petition was dismissed. Operative portions of the said judgment read as under: “109. The petitioner has solely relied on the statement of the Leader of the Opposition and contended that if it is true, the matter requires investigation. As such, he has no evidence or material, and that is why he has prayed for an interim direction, as stated above. Investigation is the function of the police and writ court cannot be converted as an investigation agency. 110. Instant writ petition has been filed on 8.7.2020. Office has made an objection. Petitioner has sent the legal notice to the respondents on 9.7.2020. We have called for the file relating to W.P.(C) No. 9531 of 2020. Complaint dated 20.04.2020 has been sent to the Director General of Police, Trivandrum; the Inspector of Police, Museum Police Station; and the Director of Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau, Trivandrum. For the first time, after the filing of WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 8 :: the instant writ petition, legal notice has been sent to the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi; Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi; and the Director, NIA, New Delhi. Before seeking for a prayer for mandamus against the CBI and NIA to register an FIR, no complaint has been made. 111. Remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extraordinary. Exercise of power to entertain a writ petition arises if only the person, who alleges inaction on the part of the statutory authorities, has no other alternative and efficacious remedy under the Statute. True, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that there is no fetters in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whether a person complains of violation of his fundamental or statutory right, but at the same time, it should be borne in mind that if there is an adequate and efficacious remedy available to such person, to vindicate his grievance, then the self imposed restraint on the writ court to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction shall be applied and such person should be relegated to avail the statutory remedy. 112. Merely because allegations are levelled against the Hon'ble Chief Minister and others and in as much as the allegations relate to abuse of power, it cannot be contended that the nature and magnitude require issuance of a writ as the only remedy available to the petitioner. However, intricate the magnitude and the nature of the offences alleged, the Code of Criminal Procedure has envisaged a procedure to be followed and, therefore, the same cannot be given a go-by, and a writ petition is not the proper remedy. 113. In the light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, and our conclusion that no writ of mandamus can be issued, we do not propose to delve into other rival contentions as to whether, the State Government could have written to the Central Government to include the allegations relating to corruption also. WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 9 :: 114. As the writ petition itself is not maintainable, there is also no need to go into the issue as to whether, National Investigation Agency while investigating any Scheduled Offence may also investigate any other offence which the accused is alleged to have committed, if the offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence. Therefore, judged from any angle, we are of the view, petitioner has not made out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.” 9. Material on record further discloses that the instant writ petition is filed based on newspaper reports and photographs. It is trite law that 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. 10. On the aspect of a Public Interest Litigation purely based on newspaper reports, let us consider the following decisions: (i) In **S.A. Khan v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Another** reported in (1993) 3 SCC 151: AIR 1993 SC 1348, at paragraph 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "22. In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 10 :: facts as appeared in the Press report. In fact, Ch. Bhajan Lal in his counter affidavit has taken a stand that the statements attributed to him based on the newspaper report are mere hearsay and cannot in law be relied upon for the purpose of initiating such proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified in issuing a suo motu notice for contempt of court." (ii) In **Laxmi Raj Shetty and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu** [(1988) 3 SCC 319], at paragraphs 25 and 26, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "25. ............ 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 aliunde. A report in a newspapers is only 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 newspapers report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. 26. 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 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: WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 11 :: "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." We need not burden the judgment with many citations. There is nothing on record to substantiate the facts as reported in the newspapers showing recovery of the stolen amount from the residence of Appellant 2 at Mangalore. We have therefore no reason to discard the testimony of PW 50 and the seizure witnesses which go to establish that the amount in question was actually recovered at Madras on the 29[th] and the 30[th] as alleged." (iii) In **Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. The State of Assam and Ors** ., reported in AIR 1999 SC 3571, at paragraph 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "25. Newspaper reports regarding the Central Government decision could not be any basis for the respondents to stop action under the Assam Control Order of 1961. The paper reports do not specifically refer to the Assam Control Order, 1961. In fact, Government of Assam itself was not prepared to act on the newspaper reports, as stated in its wireless message. Section 81 of the Evidence Act was relied upon for the appellant, in this behalf, to say that the newspaper reports were evidence and conveyed the necessary information to one and all including the respondents 2 and 3. But the presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 to newspaper reports cannot be treated as proof of the facts stated therein. The statements of fact in newspapers are merely hearsay Laxmi Raj Setty v. State of Tamil Nadu [1988CriLJ1783]." WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 12 :: ## (iv) In **Vikas Vashishth v. Allahabad High Court** reported in (2004) 13 SCC 485, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "4. 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 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." (v) In **Rohit Pandey v. Union of India** reported in (2005) 13 SCC 702, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "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 WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 13 :: 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 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. " (vi) In **Holicow Pictures Pvt. Ltd. v. Prem Chandra Mishra and Ors.** [(2007) 14 SCC 281], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 14 :: “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. 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 WP(C) NO. 30661 OF 2022 :: 15 :: with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts.” Giving due consideration to the facts and circumstances and also the decisions taken note of, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. **sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** jesxxxxxx