Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently made a significant decision regarding a case originating from Kerala, wherein the State’s Special Leave Petition challenging a 2019 Kerala High Court judgment was dismissed. The High Court had directed the State to provide Rs. 1 lakh in compensation to an individual who had been unlawfully detained by the police under suspicion of being a Maoist.
A bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and PB Varale rendered the decision to dismiss the State’s petition, asserting, “We see absolutely no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the High Court, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” However, it’s noteworthy that the Court has kept the question of law open for further consideration.
The case stemmed from an incident in 2014 involving Shyam Balakrishnan, an author and researcher residing in Wayanad district. Balakrishnan was detained by plainclothes policemen while riding his bike on May 20, 2014, under suspicion of being associated with Maoists. The police detained him without adhering to the procedural guidelines outlined in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the directives for arrests set forth by the apex court in the D K Basu case.
Balakrishnan’s detention included a strip search at the police station in front of onlookers, and subsequently, officers from the ‘Thunder Bolt,’ a specialized unit of the Kerala police for dealing with Maoist activities, conducted a search of his residence, seizing his books and laptop.
Alleging that the arrest, search, and seizure were conducted unlawfully, causing him emotional distress, damaging his reputation, and infringing upon his fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, Balakrishnan, who is the son of a retired High Court judge, filed a writ petition.
Justice Muhamed Mustaque, in a single-bench ruling on May 22, 2015, upheld Balakrishnan’s petition, emphasizing that the police had violated his liberty by detaining him without establishing any credible suspicion of his involvement in a cognizable offense punishable by law. The single bench further stated that the police cannot detain an individual solely on the grounds of suspected association with Maoists unless there is reasonable evidence to suggest unlawful activities.
In 2019, a division bench of the Kerala High Court upheld the ruling of the single bench, reinforcing the principle that personal liberty cannot be infringed upon arbitrarily and without proper legal justification.
“We have no hesitation in holding that, in view of the primacy that is accorded under our Constitution to a person’s fundamental right to privacy and personal liberty, the action of police authorities in detaining and interrogating the petitioner and thereafter searching his residence, without following the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure was wholly unjustified”, held the Division Bench of Chief Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar.
The Bench added that freedom to hold a political ideology was part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The framers of our Constitution believed that certain freedoms are essential to enjoy the fruits of liberty and that the State shall not be permitted to trample upon these freedoms save for the pursuit of objectives that are in the larger interest of Society. As a matter of fact, the worth of a State lies in the worth of the individuals composing it and a truly free State is one where the collective liberties of its citizens are duly recognised and respected..
Accordingly, merely on a suspicion that the petitioner has embraced the Maoist ideology, he cannot be persecuted by the State authorities.”, it said.
Also Read: Former Biju Janata Dal Leader Shares Touching Anecdote About PM Modi As He Joins BJP
