The Supreme Court on Monday directed Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (Metro) in Chennai to file a status report on the progress it had made in its one-year investigation into the alleged murder of a human rights lawyer's son in 2011.
Advocate R. Sankarasubbu’s 24-year-old son S. Sathish Kumar, a law graduate, died in June 2011. The father was known for taking up human rights cases against the police. The son's death had caused a furore, especially among lawyers.
The case, which was initially probed by the State police, was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2012. It filed a report concluding that the case was one of suicide.
The Madras High Court had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by former CBI Director R.K. Raghavan. After inquiring into the death, it filed a report with the findings that the young man was murdered. However, the SIT could not zero in on the persons involved in the alleged murder.
The High Court, on the basis of the SIT report, gave the case to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) on February 4, last year.
Appearing before a Bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate R. Basant and advocate Rahul Shyam Bhandari, for Mr. Sankarasubbu, argued that the CB-CID had not filed a single report since February 2021 even though the High Court had directed them to file quarterly status reports before it.
Mr. Basant submitted that the CB-CID was an arm of the State Police and the family had serious suspicions whether the investigation would be fair.
‘Peculiar case’
"Giving it to another wing of the State Police would not be productive at all. This is a peculiar case. Initially a suicide theory was made to scuttle the investigation... We want the SIT to continue with the investigation. If anybody is not available now in the SIT, this court can replace the person with another," Mr. Basant submitted.
The court noted that Mr. Raghavan may be unavailable now to head the SIT. Neither the CBI nor the State Police could be employed to probe the case.
"So what is the future course of action you want?" Justice Chandrachud asked the lawyers on the petitioner side.
"You should give the CB-CID some breathing space. An organisation is composed of individuals. There will be individuals who will investigate the case dispassionately. If we take the case away now, it may affect their morale," Justice Surya Kant observed.
Senior advocate S. Prabakaran, appearing for lawyers' associations, argued that no substantial progress had been made by the CB-CID in all these months till now. He too seconded Mr. Basant's plea to have the SIT investigate the case
The court finally issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government. It directed the CB-CID (Metro) to file its status report indicating the progress made in the course of one year. The report had to be submitted in three weeks. The court ordered the case to be listed after four weeks.
"We will first see what progress they have made so far... We have a few options in our mind, which we may pursue after seeing this report," Justice Chandrachud addressed the petitioner side orally.
