Ukkash F | Sastra School of Law, Tamil Nadu | 20th June 2020
P. P. Ramachandra Kaimal Vs The State Of Kerala
FACTS OF THE PLEA
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition which alleged the missing INSAS Rifles and cartridges in the police custody. The PIL seeks to direct the Union and State Governments to entrust an agency like CBI or NIA with the investigation of the reported shortage of 25 numbers of 5.56 mm INSAS rifles and 12061 live cartridges from the custody of State Police.
The CAG of India has tabled reports before the state assembly on the shortage of ammunition. It was also reported that out of the 1261 missing cartridges, 250 numbers of 9 mm drill cartridges were replaced by dummy cartridges, and the report further reveals that the shortage of cartridges is from the year 2000 onwards.
ISSUE
- Whether the Court can direct the State to take immediate action to trace out and recover the missing INSAS rifles & cartridges which is reported to be missing from the custody of State Police?
SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSELS
The petitioner’s main contention is the matter involves the security of the nation and the people of the State, especially in the light of the fact that the nation is under serious threat of terrorists, including Maoists and ISIS. The missing rifles and ammunition are creating suspicion.
The respondent-State contended that the crime is already under investigation by the Crime Branch Wing of the State Police. Moreover, the counsel contended that,
“Each INSAS rifles allocated to SAP have been physically verified and accounted for by them. The whole issue of the missing of rifles happened due to the refusal by the Comptroller and Auditor General Team to account for the 25 rifles transferred temporarily from SAP to Thiruvananthapuram city on 14.02.2011. However, the concerned record is shown to them.”
The petitioner also submitted that even if it is admitted that no arms were missing when the inspection was conducted by the Crime Branch, it is a serious matter, since the arms were missing when CAG conducted joint physical verification. It is not explained as to where the arms had gone when they conducted the joint physical verification. Moreover, the Advocate General submitted that the issue concerning the report of the CAG is a matter for consideration of the Parliament and State Legislatures, and the interference of the Constitutional Courts would be slow in such matters.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The bench comprising of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly on evaluating the rival submissions stated that one thing is very definite that there is a clear segregation of power by and between the Legislature, the executive and judiciary under Art 208 & 212 of the Indian Constitution.
Moreover, the Constitution clearly states the CAGs duties, and it is clear that CAG is an authority designed to function independently. The Court observed that,
“On a harmonious reading of the provisions of Articles 148 to 151 and Rule 242 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Kerala Legislative Assembly, it is explicit that once a report is submitted by CAG to the Governor, it has to be placed before the Legislative Assembly and the Committee of Public Accounts of the Legislative Assembly has to look into the matter and examine the accounts of stores and stocks.”
Therefore the Court observed that the petition is premature and it is to be dismissed since the subject issue is under consideration of the competent authority within the framework of Constitution of India, persuading this Court to think deeply as to whether any interference at this stage would be justified.
Leave a Reply