E.Veluchamy v. The Special Investigation team

judicial history as to how well established facts could be twisted tothe convenience of parties and how a provision of law could bemisused and how the valuable public time of the Court could be wastedby filing a fictitious and frivolous litigation aiming publicity andto settle political and personal scores, knowing fully well that theyare fighting a losing battle. 2. Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the entire Nation -irrespective of caste, creed, race and religion - was shocked andgrieved at the stroke of 22.15 hours on 21.5.1991, when the formerPrime Minister of India, Sri Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a humanbomb at Sriperumbudur, Tamil Nadu. Some other persons also lost theirlives in that incident. This inhuman, barbaric and shameful actperpetrated by the forces outside India, which was later identifiedas the LTTE of Sri Lanka, which is a banned outfit now, was condemnedby each and every civilized nation in the world and every human beingon the earth. A case in Crime No.329/1991 was registered by theInspector of Police, Sriperumbadur at 01.15 hours on 22.05.1991 forthe offences under Sections 302, 307, 328 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 ofthe Explosive Substances Act and the investigation of the case wastaken up by the Crime Branch CID, Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, at therequest of the Government of Tamil Nadu, the case was re-registeredby the Central Bureau of Investigation as RC.9(S)/91-CBI/SCB/MASunder Sections 120B r/w.Sections 302, 326, 324, 201, 212 and 216 ofIPC, Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Section 25of the Arms Act; Section 12 of the Passport Act; Section 14 of theForeigners Act; Section 16(1-A) of Wireless and Telegraph Act andSections 3,4 and 5 of the Terrorist and Destructive Activities(Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) on 24.5.1991. After completingthe investigation, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constitutedby the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the case underthe leadership of Mr.D.R.Karthikeyan, filed the charge-sheet on20.5.1992 before the Designated Court No.1 under TADA, Chennai, whichwas specially constituted under Section 9(1) of TADA Act, 1987 fortrying Sri Rajiv Gandhi assassination case and the same was taken onfile in C.C.No.3/1992, against the available 26 accused, including(1) Nalini, (2) Santhan, (3) Murugan, (4) Shankar, (5) Vijeyandran,(6) Ruban and (7) Arivu, seeking whose 'release' this petition hasbeen filed. The case against the absconding accused was split up asC.C.No.11/1992 and the same is still pending.3. The Designated Court No.1 under TADA, Chennai found all theavailable 26 accused guilty of the charges and all of them weresentenced to capital punishment of death on various counts. Since asper Section 19 of the TADA Act, an appeal against the conviction andsentence rendered by a Designated Court would lie only before theHonourable Supreme Court of India, all the 26 accused, including theabove named seven persons, preferred appeals before the HonourableSupreme Court of India in their individual capacity. A Three JudgeBench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India heard all the appeals https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ along with Death Reference Case No.1/1998 and all the appeals weredisposed of on 11.5.1999 by the Honourable Supreme Court, vide itsjudgment reported in (1999) 5 SCC 253, confirming the conviction ofall the accused persons except one and modifying the sentence inrespect of some of the accused persons. Four accused persons havefiled Review Petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court and theywere also disposed of on 13.7.1999, by confirming their conviction.Thus, all the above named seven persons, along with other accusedpersons, are now serving their sentences, having been found guilty ofvarious charges, after following the due process of law. 4. In these circumstances, this petition has been filed by thepetitioner, who is said to be a ‘socially conscious person’ and was‘also a member of the Congress and continuing in the same even now’praying to direct the respondents to produce the bodies of (1)Nalini, (2) Santhan, (3) Murugan, (4) Shankar, (5) Vijeyandran, (6)Ruban and (7) Arivu and release them. Except saying that he is a'socially conscious person', nothing has been mentioned as to in whatway he is ‘interested’ or ‘related’ to the above said seven persons,so as to file and maintain this habeas corpus petition. When weexpressed our opinion that this petition is liable to be rejected asnot maintainable, since the above said seven persons are servingtheir sentences as convict prisoners imposed by the Honourable ApexCourt, having been found guilty of various charges, which wasconfirmed till the Supreme Court, the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner has insisted that the case be heard since he want tomake his submissions and argued this matter at length, inviting ourdetailed order in this matter.5. In his long affidavit, the petitioner has showered hisknowledge on many irrelevant aspects to the case, like the issue ofYasar Arafat which is quite unnecessary for the matter. Further, hetried to give a picture that LTTE has not played any role in theassassination of Sri Rajiv Gandhi, when the role of LTTE and its topbrass leaders in the assassination of Sri Rajiv Gandhi was proved onan appreciated investigation conducted by SIT of CBI and they are nowthe absconding accused in the case, against whom the case is split-upand pending trial. The petitioner has also shed venom on hispolitical opponent Mr.Subramaniaswamy, the President of the JanataParty, who was not impleaded as a party to these proceedings so as tohave an opportunity for him to rebut the allegations made againsthim. 6. We extract hereunder the various allegations made by thepetitioner in his affidavit against Mr.Subramaniasamy:"2. I submit that I was closely associated withSubramaniasamy the Janata Party leader. However after theassassination of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi I becamesuspicious about whatever Subramaniasamy said and did. I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ started raising doubts about his involvement in the saidmurder and had been writing and giving speeches andinterview.""5.... The assassination took place at 10.20 p.m atSriperumbadur near Chennai. However, immediately afterassassination even before any investigation the CentralGovernment circulated the news that it was the LTTE whichhad carried out the assassination. I was the one who heardthe news from Delhi from Dr.Subramaniasamy when the rest ofthe world did not know and the persons who were there at thebomb site did not know.""7.... I submit that the whole country was shocked by theassassination. Every citizen felt he had lost someonedear. The Government of India instantly took steps toappoint the judicial commission under the appropriate act.Finally the Justice Milap Chand Jain had given an interimreport followed by the final report comprising of nearlynine volumes. In the final report he directed further CBIprobe against several accused and in particular as againstChandrasami a notorious arms dealer and Subramanian Swamyetc. The order was passed on 5th August, 1998. I alsoappeared before the Commission and deposed. I had also beencirculating copies of the letter written byDr.Subramaniasamy and later purchased back by him in bulk.The following lines are found at the end of the preface tothe book written by Swamy titled as 'Raji Bloody Murder(Unanswered Questions and the questions that were notasked)' dated 23 March 2001. "Although the murders have beenpunished the aides of the murder happen to be his relativesand political heirs, and inheritors of his property and thatthey are going scot- free."7. Though such serious allegations are made against the saidSubramaniaswamy, he has not been impleaded as a party to theseproceedings to give an opportunity for him to explain them. Courtsare not meant for settling the personal scores under the garb ofinvented litigations and this attitude exhibited on the part of thepetitioner needs to be deprecated. 8. Reverting back to the question of maintainability, first ofall, all the above named seven persons are admittedly the convictprisoners, serving sentence imposed by the Honourable Apex Court,since being the accused in Sri Rajiv Gandhi’s assassination case. Theillegal attempt made on the part of the petitioner, to call them as‘detenus’ and seeking their ‘release’ has to be condemned and viewedseriously. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. When a specific question regarding the locus standi of thepetitioner, to file this petition has been raised, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner would argue that the powers of the Courtin matters of detention are very wide and anybody, who has a concernfor the detenu, can file a Habeas Corpus Petition. Much has beenargued and emphasised on the part of the petitioner that in thematters of Habeas Corpus, strict rules of pleading should not befollowed and that such Habeas Corpus petition can be filed by anybodyand therefore, this Habeas Corpus Petition filed by the petitioner,a social conscious person, is very well maintainable.10. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on a Three Judge Bench judgment of theHonourable Apex Court delivered in SUNIL BATRA (II) vs. DELHIADMINISTRATION [(1980) 3 SCC 488], in which case a letter written toa Supreme Court Judge by a prisoner in Tihar Jail, Delhi complainingill-treatment meted out to a co-prisoner, was treated as a HabeasCorpus Petition. 11. The other judgment relied on by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is another Three Judge Bench judgment of the HonourableApex Court delivered in BANDHUA MUKTI MORCHA vs. UNION OF INDIA ANDOTHERS [(1984) 3 SCC 161], wherein a public interest litigation filedunder Article 32 by a public spirited organisation on behalf ofpersons belonging to socially and economically weaker sectioncomplaining violation of their human rights on being forced to serveas bonded labourers was held to be maintainable. 12. Both the above judgments arose under different circumstances.The first case was initiated based on a letter written by a co-prisoner regarding the ill-treatment meted out to a prisoner, whichhas been treated as a habeas corpus petition. But, in the case onhand, the above named seven persons are serving their sentence,imposed by the Honourable Apex Court, as convict prisoners andfurther more, the very verdict of the Honourable Apex Court, findingthem guilty of the charges framed against them, is sought to bebranded as non-est in law by the petitioner, who has no authenticityto file this petition, that too questioning the judgment of theHonourable Apex Court, which is binding on all Courts in India underArticle 141 of the Constitution. The law declared by the SupremeCourt is the law of the land and the general principle of law laiddown by the Supreme Court is applicable to every person includingthose who were not parties to that order. Therefore, the firstjudgment cited above has no application to the facts of the case on hand.13. The second case relied upon by the learned counsel for thepetitioner is regarding the release of the bonded labourers at theinstance of a private organisation, which is not the case on hand.The petitioner is attempting to create a picture before us as if he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is a Messiah of Masses and fighting for the cause of others, ignoringthe fact that the persons, whose 'release' he is seeking for in thisnot maintainable petition, are the accused persons, whose guilt hasbeen proved beyond all reasonable doubts upto the level of theHonourable Supreme Court and such a not maintainable petition couldnot be equated with a public interest litigation. Therefore, thesecond judgment cited above by the learned counsel for the petitioneralso do not apply to the facts of the case on hand, which standscompletely on a different footing.14. But, we are aware that the learned counsel for the petitioneris trying to impress upon us that anybody ‘interested’ can seek therelease of a detenu. No doubt, by now it is a well settledproposition of law that any person ‘interested’ or ‘related’ to the‘detenu’ can file a Habeas Corpus Petition seeking the release of thedetenu. But, in the case on hand, as has already been discussedsupra, the above named seven persons are not the ‘detenus’, sincethey are not detained under any preventive detention laws, but areconvict prisoners, serving their sentences, as awarded by theHonourable Apex Court, after exhausting all the legal remediesavailable to them. No provision of law permits a third party to fileany petition for any relief on behalf of such accused persons, exceptthe accused himself. Thus, the law has drawn a distinct line betweenthe terms ‘accused’, ‘detenu’ and moreover a ‘convict prisoner’ andthe malicious attempt on the part of the petitioner to erase thisdistinction, cannot be permitted. No provision of law or even abinding precedent has been brought to our notice by the petitioner toshow that even the convict prisoners could seek for their ‘release’by filing a habeas corpus petition, except relying on a U.S.SupremeCourt order in RICHARD EARL PILON vs. DONALD E.BORDENKIRCHER,reported in 441 US 1, wherein it has been held that 'State prisonerin federal habeas corpus proceeding challenging sufficiency ofevidence for his manslaughter conviction is entitled todetermination, on remand, of whether evidence supported finding ofguilt beyond reasonable doubt.' The above said judgment of theSupreme Court of United States has got only a persuasive value anddo not have any binding effect on us. The law, system and proceduresbeing followed by the United States in such matters appears to betotally different from our law. As has been repeatedly observed byus throughout this order, the above said seven persons are not thedetenus but the convict prisoners, whose guilt has been proved beyondall reasonable doubts after a full fledged trial and they have alsoexhausted all the legal remedies available to them, which cannot becalled as a 'no evidence case', as has been mischievously tried to becalled on the part of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the abovejudgment of the U.S. Supreme Court was rendered at the instance ofthe accused himself, but in the case on hand, the petitioner, who hasno locus standi to file this case, has initiated this vexatiouslitigation. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the above judgment ofthe U.S. Supreme Court will not help the case of the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15. At this juncture, it is apt to mention that when a practisingAdvocate, who is not a friend or relative of the detenu, has filedH.C.P., as a third party, seeking the release of her 'client' on theargument that she is also a socially conscious person, by thejudgment in S.SENGKODI vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS [2009-2-L.W. 598 = 2009 CIJ 376 Madras], one of us (Elipe Dharma Rao, J.),speaking for the Bench, has held the said H.C.P. as not maintainable.The same analogy applies to the case on hand also, since admittedly,the petitioner is neither a friend nor a relative of the above saidseven convict prisoners, but has filed this not maintainable petitionwith malicious intention of settling his personal scores with hispolitical opponents. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold thatthe petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition.16. On a thorough analysis of the entire materials placed onrecord, we have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has filedthis fictitious litigation, without having any locus standi, aimingat short lived publicity, to settle his political and personalscores, when Parliament elections are fast approaching (TheParliament elections are scheduled to be held in Tamil Nadu on13.5.2009) and not for any legal or valuable purpose. In thesecircumstances, the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in DEEPAKBAJAJ vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANOTHER (W.P.(Crl.) No.77 of 2008,dated 12.12.2008) wherein it has been held that non-supply ofrelevant documents to the detenu would vitiate the order ofdetention. This judgment has been cited on the part of thepetitioner while arguing that the Jain Commission Report was notsupplied to the above said seven persons. But, this judgment has noapplication to the facts of the case, since the above said sevenpersons are only ‘convict prisoners’, serving the sentence imposed onthem by the Honourable Apex Court and not ‘detenus’, as has beenillegally sought to be branded on the part of the petitioner. 17. On behalf of the petitioner, two judgments of the SupremeCourt have been relied on, the first one in SHRI LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAIPATEL vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [(1981) 2 SCC 427] and the secondone in MOIDEEN KOYA vs. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA [(2004) 8 SCC 106] toemphasise the point that the bar of res judicata or principlesanalogous thereto would not apply to a writ of habeas corpus wherethe petitioner prays for setting him at liberty. There cannot be anydoubt that the principles of res judicata have no application in thecriminal jurisprudence and a fresh habeas corpus petition would lieon fresh grounds. But, this principle has no application to thefacts of the case on hand, since the above said seven persons are notthe ‘detenus’, so as to maintain the Habeas Corpus Petition. As hasbeen observed by us in the opening paragraph of this judgment, theentire facts of the case have been twisted to his convenience by thepetitioner, as if the above said seven persons are detenus and are inillegal custody and filed this vexatious litigation, wasting thepublic time of this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In para No.15 of his affidavit, the petitioner has submittedthe following grounds:a)The detenus are liable to be released for the very arrestsince 1991 is grossly illegal and untenable.b) The detenus are not guilty of the alleged offence ofassassination and prosecution story of SIT is found to beconflicting with that of the report of Jain Commission.c) The detenus be held in jail results in perpetuation ofthe false belief that the LTTE was behind theAssassination.d)The detenus despite innocence have faced an illegalprosecution and an illegal punishment and an illegaldetention of 18 years which cannot be allowed to happeneven for a moment under the present circumstances.19. In support of his contentions that the investigationconducted by the SIT was full of flaws from the very beginning, thepetitioner has relied on an article titled ‘India & the struggle forTamil Eelam, who really killed Rajiv Gandhi’, by Dr.Norman Bakerpublished in the Illustrated Weekly of India, dated 22.8.1992. We areat a loss to understand as to in what way the opinions ofindividuals, alleging that the investigation conducted by the SIT wasfull of flaws from the very beginning, would help the case of thepetitioner, when, upon conducting a full fledged trial with dueopportunity for them, all these persons were found guilty of thecharges framed against them and even the capital punishment of deathimposed on some of the accused persons by the trial Court wasmodified to one of life imprisonment by the Honourable Apex Court. At this juncture, we would like to place on record the observationsof the Honourable Apex Court in para No.639 of its judgment reportedin (1999) 5 SCC 253, which read as follows:“We would also like to record our appreciation for theSpecial Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the CentralBureau of Investigation to investigate the case. Under thestewardship of Mr.D.R.Karthikeyan, SIT did assiduous workand was able to solve the crime within a short time.Investigation was meticulous, loose ends tied to bring out aclear picture of conspiracy and the part played by each ofthe conspirators. Members of SIT performed the job withdedication and determination. They succeeded in theirmission but their only regret perhaps was that they couldnot capture Sivarasan alive….”20. When such is the firm conclusion arrived at by the Honourable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Apex Court, regarding the appreciable way in which the investigationwas conducted by SIT and the culprits have been booked and broughtbefore the Court, recording its patting for the Special InvestigationTeam constituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the attemptmade on the part of the petitioner to brand the investigationconducted by the Special Investigation Team otherwise, seekingsupport from individual opinions published in various journals, whichare not having any evidentiary value, cannot be appreciated. 21. Though, even as per the averments of the petition, someEnquiry Commissions are appointed by the Government, it seems theyare to find out the other aspects of the case and not regarding theconcluded aspect of the role played by these convict prisoners. Ascould be seen from the materials available on record, Justice VermaCommission of Inquiry was appointed with respect to the followingmatters:“2. a) Whether the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi couldhave been averted and whether there were lapses ordereliction of duty in this regard on the part of any ofthe individuals responsible for his security;b) the deficiencies, if any, in the security system andarrangements as prescribed or operated in practice whichmight have contributed to the assassination.3. The Commission may also recommend corrective remediesand measures that need to be taken for the future withrespect to the matters specified in clause (b) of paragraph2 above.”22. The Justice Verma Commission of Inquiry submitted its reporton 15.6.1992 which was placed along with the Action Taken Reportbefore the Parliament on 23.12.1992.23. Since the terms of reference of Justice Verma Commission ofInquiry did not include conspiracy aspect of the assassination ofShri Rajiv Gandhi, the Government of India appointed a second one-manjudicial commission headed by the Honourable Mr.Justice M.C.Jain,Chief Justice of Delhi High Court (Retd.) on 23.8.1991 and the termsof reference of Justice Jain Commission of Inquiry are as follows:“a) the sequence of events leading to, and all the facts andcircumstances, elating to the assassination of Shri RajivGandhi at Sriperumpudur (other than the matters covered bythe Terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry headedby Shri Justice J.S.Verma).b) Whether any person or persons or agencies were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ responsible for conceiving, preparing and planning theassassination and wherever there was any conspiracy in thisbehalf and if so, all its ramifications.”24. The said commission submitted its interim report on 28.8.1997and Final report on 7.3.1998. The Honourable Supreme Court deliveredits judgment on 11.5.1999 i.e. well after the final report submittedby Jain Commission. In this backdrop, now an argument has beenadvanced on the part of the petitioner that the present situation isthat the investigation, trial and sentence notwithstanding thecontinuation of the Jain Commission would render the whole thing nulland void and all the sufferings meted out to the accused personsshould be redressed and in any case, they have suffered the longestpunishment in the Indian Legal history and the only course open is toforthwith release them. 25. As has been pointed out supra, Justice Jain's Commission hadsubmitted its interim report on 28.8.1997 and its Final report on7.3.1998. The Honourable Supreme Court delivered its judgment on11.5.1999 i.e. well after the final report submitted by JainCommission. Therefore, there was ample time and opportunity for thepetitioner and even the accused persons to challenge the same beforethe Honourable Apex Court, which has not been done by anybody. Evenin the petition, the petitioner has submitted that he hasparticipated in the enquiry proceedings and he is well aware of thesame. In such event, if at all aggrieved, nothing has prevented himfrom challenging the said Enquiry Report. But, for the reasons bestknown to him and not revealed anywhere, the petitioner has not chosento challenge the said Enquiry report, but now, in this notmaintainable petition, he has repeatedly placed reliance on theobservations of the said Committee, which is out of scope of ourconsideration. Some of the accused persons have also filed reviewpetitions before the Honourable Apex Court, wherein also they havenot brought these aspects for the consideration of the HonourableApex Court. When we questioned the respondents as to why the reportof Justice Jain was not placed before the Honourable Supreme Court,the Superintendent of Police, CBI, has filed an additional counteraffidavit submitting that since the Honourable Apex Court heard theappeals filed by the accused against the conviction and sentencepassed by the Designated Court under TADA, Chennai as an appellateCourt, the question of submitting the report of Justice JainCommission of Inquiry before the Honourable Supreme Court did notarise and further, the Honourable Supreme Court never directed theGovernment of India or the Special Investigation Team in CBI toproduce the Justice Jain Commission of Inquiry Report. 26. It was further submitted that the subject matter before theHonourable Supreme Court was to decide whether the conviction andsentence imposed on the appellants was sustainable in law and thereport of Justice Jain Commission of Inquiry was not impugned before https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Supreme Court and the Government of India, which accepted thereport of Justice Jain Commission of Inquiry, directed the CBI toconduct further investigation and after getting due permission fromthe Designated Court No.1, Chennai, further investigation is beingconducted. We are fully convinced with the said legally sustainablereasoning offered on the part of the respondents. When no step hasbeen taken on the part of the accused themselves to question theJustice Jain Commission Report and when there was no necessity oroccasion for the respondents to file the said report before theHonourable Apex Court, the petitioner cannot be permitted to rake-upsuch a plea before us.27. Further, when we have posed a question as to why there issuch a long delay of ten years in filing this petition, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner has replied that the petitioner isotherwise busy and was not in a position to concentrate on this case,which resulted in delay. As has already been pointed out supra, thepetitioner himself has submitted in para No.7 of his affidavit thathe has participated in the enquiry conducted by Justice Jain and hadalso deposed. Therefore, if at all he felt any need to challenge thereport submitted by the said Committee, he ought to have done it,which he did not do, for the reasons best known to him and submittingsome arguments based on the report of the said Committee, whichcannot be permitted. 28. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submitthat delay should not hamper the substantial cause of the litigants.In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitionerwould press into service a Constitutional Bench judgment of theHonourable Apex Court delivered in P.N.ESWARA IYER AND OTHERS vs.REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [(1980) 4 SCC 680], wherein theHonourable Apex Court has held that:"A technical objection should not throw out a suitor fromthe plea of justice. After all, the courts belong to thepeople, as Jerome Frank once said. And litigants are legalpatients suffering from injustices seeking healing fortheir wounds."29. There cannot be any doubt or dispute regarding the aboveproposition laid down by the Honourable Apex Court. But, the saidcase has arisen at the instance of the parties themselves regardingtheir civil rights, while dealing with a review. It is not the caseon hand. The accused are undergoing the sentences imposed on themafter conducting a full-fledged trial in the case registered againstthem and they have also exhausted all the legal remedies open tothem. But, they are not the parties before us and the petitioner,who is in no way connected with the whole affair has invented thismischievous and malicious litigation to settle his personal scoreswith his political opponents when the Parliament elections are fast https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approaching (the Parliament election for Tamil Nadu is scheduled tobe held on 13.4.2009) and therefore, the above proposition of lawlaid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above case will not, inany way, help the case of the petitioner.30. From the records placed before us, it is seen thatconsequent to the deliberations on the Final Report of the JainCommission and the Memorandum of Action Taken thereon in both theHouses of Parliament, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel,Public Grievances & Pension, has issued Office MemorandumNo.201/4/198-AVD.II, dated 2.12.1998, constituting the MultiDisciplinary Monitoring Agency (MDMA) in the Central Bureau ofInvestigation to look into the larger conspiracy aspect. Thereupon,the said MDMA has approached the jurisdictional Designated Courtunder TADA, Chennai and on 20.5.1999 an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was filed seeking permission to conduct furtherinvestigation in the light of the recommendations made by theCommission of Inquiry of the Honourable Mr.Justice M.C.Jain, whichwas granted by the said Court by its order dated 7.6.1999 inCrl.M.P.No.1/1999 in C.C.No.11/1992, which is a split up caseregarding the absconding accused. It is seen from the record that sofar 42 status reports are filed by MDMA before the Designated CourtNo.1 under TADA Act. When such is the situation that furtherinvestigation regarding the other aspects of the case, but not withregard to the already concluded aspect of the case i.e. regarding theproved guilt of the accused persons in the case, it is too early tocomment the further investigation going to be conducted, as has beenattempted on the part of the petitioner. 31. When such is the clear picture regarding the different anddistinct purposes for which various Enquiry Commissions have beenappointed, the petitioner has attempted to interpret it in adifferent manner, to suit his convenience, as if in the subsequentreports/investigations, clean chits have been given to the above saidconvict prisoners, with no material to support the same. Evenpresuming that the said argument advanced on the part of thepetitioner is true, without conceding, all the doors are closed forthe above said convict prisoners, since they have exhausted all thelegal remedies available to them and their conviction has been upheldby the Honourable Supreme Court.32. Leave alone the aspect that any Commission’s report is onlyrecommendatory and not having the effect of any binding nature on theGovernment, nowhere any clean chit has been given to these convictprisoners, who are found guilty of various charges by due process oflaw, after a full-fledged trial. Therefore, viewing from any angle,this Habeas Corpus Petition is liable only to be dismissed, sincebeing invented to achieve and settle personal scores, by way of thispetition, with no legal purpose to be achieved. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. Before concluding we want to place on record the fact thatthis Bench has heard the arguments of the learned counsel for thepetitioner on 22.4.2009 and at the request of the learned SpecialPublic Prosecutor appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation,to file additional counter for a query raised by us as why the reportof the Justice Jain Commission was not submitted before theHonourable Apex Court, the case was adjourned to 24.4.2009. Due toadministrative reasons, on 24.4.2009, a different Division Bench wasconstituted (Justice Elipe Dharma Rao and Justice R.Subbiah) and inthe morning session, when the case was taken up for consideration,an additional counter has been filed by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation and to file reply to the above counter affidavit and toadvance arguments on the aspects mentioned in the additional counterfiled by the CBI, at the request of the learned counsel for thepetitioner the case was passed-over after lunch. But, at 2.30 p.m.,the learned counsel for the petitioner has neither filed any replynor advanced any arguments but sought for time till next day. When wehave already considered his request to pass over the matter till 2.30p.m., so as to facilitate him to file a reply and advance argumentson the aspects mentioned in the additional counter affidavit filed bythe CBI and accordingly taken up the matter again at 2.30 p.m., thelearned counsel for the petitioner has simply sought for adjournmentto next day. Therefore, since no purpose is going to be served byadjourning the matter by heeding to the request of the learnedcounsel for the petitioner, at whose instance only the case waspassed over to 2.30 p.m. and who has failed to file any reply and hasalso failed to advance his arguments, the matter was reserved fororders on 24.4.2009 (Friday) by the said Bench (Justice Elipe DharmaRao and Justice R.Subbiah). But, on 27.4.2009 (Monday), a letteraddressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the HonourableChief Justice was placed before us by the Registry, the contents ofwhich are extracted hereunder:"The above Writ Petition was heard on alternate days by theBench comprising of His Lordship Mr.Justice Elipe DharmaRao and Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam since last week. C.B.I. wasdirected to file additional counter affidavit as to whythey have not placed before the Supreme Court the JainCommission report naming 23 other accused, while it washearing the case regarding confirming the sentences of theaccused.To-day when the case was called I found the compositionof the Bench was different viz. Mr.Justice R.Subbiah wasaccompanying in the place of Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam. It wasexpected that on receipt of the counter from the C.B.I.,the bench would post the case for my submissions to Mondaybefore the regular bench. But the bench ordered, ordersreserved. I submitted the (sic.that) I need to make mysubmission on the counter filed by the C.B.I. and produce https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the authorities. I was given time till 2.30 p.m. Today. Iwondered as to how this bench could hear partly when themain case was already substantially heard by another Bench.I offered to file my reply after lunch and thought ofpraying for time till Monday. But my pre occupations inother Courts delayed me and hence could not draft thereply. Hence went to seek adjournment to Monday and alsomentioned the different Bench situation.The learned judge reserved the judgment and declined togive time, which is novel and unprecedented at all.Therefore as the Master of the Rooster your Lordshipmay direct the listing of this case before the same Benchfor denovo hearing or else list it before another Bench forimmediate hearing so that justice is seemingly done."34. As has been submitted by the learned counsel himself in hisabove extracted letter, he did not file any reply and has also notadvanced arguments at 2.30 p.m. before the Bench comprising of myself(Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) and Justice R.Subbiah at 2.30 p.m., asscheduled. But, thereafter he has dropped this letter with theRegistry as if great injustice has been caused in re-constituting theBench. His plea could have been an appreciable one if the matter islisted before completely a different Bench, but it is not so. Myself(Justice Elipe Dharma Rao) is heading both the Benches and it is verywell within the bounds of law to hear the matter and there is no needto heed to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner.However, in order to avoid any precipitation and in order to give theopportunity for the learned counsel for the petitioner to advance hisarguments, so as to curtail his future submission that there was noproper opportunity for him (though it is not so), we have directedthe Registry to re-constitute this Bench, for further hearing.Accordingly, this Bench is re-constituted on 28.4.2009 and the matterhas been taken up for further hearing and after hearing both parties,the matter was again reserved for orders. 35. The learned counsel for the petitioner has re-iterated thearguments already advanced by him and has pressed into service aThree Judge Bench judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in HARBANSSINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [(1982) 2 SCC 101]. Thatwas a case wherein when three accused persons were tried for one andthe same occurrence, different punishments were awarded to them bydifferent Benches, while for one accused, the capital punishment wasordered and executed, for the other accused, it was modified to oneof life imprisonment and again for another accused, the capitalpunishment was confirmed. In such circumstances, the Honourable ApexCourt has held that 'benefit of commutation to life imprisonmentgiven to one must be extended to remaining co-accused and jailauthorities were directed to verify consistency in award of death https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentence between co-accused before carrying out any death sentence.'This case has no relevance to the case on hand since the sentence ofcapital punishment imposed on all the above said seven persons by thetrial Court was modified to one of life imprisonment by the appellateCourt i.e. the Honourable Apex Court and there is no inconsistency ofdecision between different Benches. Further more, the said casearose on a petition filed by the accused himself and not by any thirdparty, as is the case in hand. Therefore, this judgment of theHonourable Apex Court has no application to the facts of the case onhand. 36. The petitioner has filed this petition aiming at a short-lived publicity and with a malicious intention of settling personalscores with political opponents without even impleading them asparties, when the Parliament elections are scheduled to be held inthe State on 13.5.2009, further twisting the facts and wasting thevaluable public time of this Court. He has not approached this Courtwith clean hands, but only with malicious intention of achievingpersonal and political scores when the election schedules aredeclared and therefore, to serve as an eye-opener for suchmischievous clients who file petitions before the Courts only forpublicity purpose, with no fruitful purpose to be achieved or served,this petition is liable to be dismissed, mulcting the petitioner withcosts. The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh (RupeesOne Lakh) only to the Chief Justices Relief Fund within four weeksfrom today. 37. In fine, our conclusions could be briefed as follows:(i)All the above said seven persons are only 'convictprisoners' and not the 'detenus', as has been tried to bebranded on the part of the petitioner.(ii)All the above said seven persons were awardedpunishments, only after full fledged trials and byaffording all reasonable opportunities to them and they arenow serving the sentences as has been imposed by theHonourable Apex Court in the Appeals and Review Petitionsfiled by the accused persons. (iii)The petitioner has no locus standi to file this HabeasCorpus Petition and this petition is not maintainable andliable to be dismissed.(iv)The petitioner has filed this petition with maliciousintention, aiming at short-lived publicity and to settlehis personal scores with his political opponents with nolegal grounds to be urged. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Different Committees have been appointed by theGovernment of India for different purposes, not withrespect to the concluded aspect of the guilt of the abovesaid seven persons and nowhere any clean chit has beengiven to the above said seven persons.(vi)All the doors are closed for the above said sevenconvict prisoners, since they have exhausted all theirlegal remedies and their conviction has already beenconfirmed by the Honourable Apex Court, while dismissingtheir appeals and review applications.(vii)The petitioner, who has no locus standi to file thispetition, has not approached this Court with clean handsand he has filed this petition only to settle hispersonal and political scores, with an intention to makeuse of this Court as a tool in achieving his wickeddesires, which can never be permitted to occur.Therefore, we are firm that to curtail such bad practicesand playing publicity tricks on the Courts to settlepersonal and political scores by such fraudulentlitigants, this petition has to be dismissed with costs. 38. For all the above reasons and discussions, this Habeas CorpusPetition is dismissed as not maintainable and devoid of anyconsideration or merit, mulcting the petitioner with a cost of Rs.1lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only). The petitioner is directed to pay a sumof Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the Chief Justices Relief Fundwithin four weeks from today, in default of the petitioner, theRegistrar General is directed to initiate all necessary legalproceedings to get the amount from the petitioner, under theprovisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.In the above circumstances, the question of granting interim bailto the above said seven convict prisoners does not arise.Accordingly, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is rejected.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.Rao https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Inspector, Special Investigation team, Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi.2.The Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu, Ministry of Home Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600009. 3.The Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.+ 1 CC To Mr.R.Karuppan, Advocate SR NO.19288 Order in H.C.P.No.529 of 2009VSV {CO}TP/8.6.2009.