Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, mother of Sayed Khwaja Yunus Sayed Ayub, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that her son disappeared while in police custody on 6 January 2003 and was likely killed due to torture. The background involved a bomb blast on 2 December 2002, leading to the arrest of Khwaja Yunus and others under POTA. The petitioner claimed that on 6 January 2003, her son was badly tortured at Ghatkopar Police Station, vomited blood, and died. Co-accused Dr. Mateen, who was present, testified to these facts. The police then allegedly staged a cover-up, claiming Khwaja Yunus escaped after a vehicle accident. An FIR was registered by respondent No. 5 at Parner stating that Khwaja Yunus had absconded. The husband of the petitioner initially filed proceedings before the POTA Court, which on 28 February 2003 could not record a definite finding but granted liberty to approach the High Court and ordered interim compensation. The State’s petition against that order was stayed. The investigation was later transferred to the CID in May 2003. On 3 March 2004, the State CID arrested PSI Vaze and admitted that Khwaja Yunus had been killed. The High Court in prior proceedings directed that Dr. Mateen’s statement be treated as the FIR on 7 April 2004. The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal against that order on 9 August 2004. An FIR was eventually registered on 16 September 2004. During the pendency of the present writ petition filed in April 2005, the CID completed its investigation and concluded that Khwaja Yunus was tortured at Ghatkopar Police lock-up by respondents 11 to 14 and died as a result, and that respondents 3 and 10 were part of the cover-up. A draft charge-sheet was submitted. However, on 5 December 2007, the State granted sanction to prosecute only respondent Nos. 5 to 8, excluding respondents 3 and 9 to 14. The petitioner challenged this selective sanction as arbitrary and sought a direction to sanction all implicated officers. The court was called upon to examine whether the Sanctioning Authority’s decision was justified or vitiated by non-application of mind to the entire material gathered during investigation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review of Administrative Action - Sanction to Prosecute - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The court observed that the validity of the sanction order must be examined based on the entire material collected by the CID and the proposal before the Sanctioning Authority, and the court would determine if the decision to prosecute only four of the fourteen officers was arbitrary or discriminatory (Paras 5-6). B) Criminal Law - Custodial Violence - Duty to Investigate and Sanction - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 197 - The State CID investigation concluded that Khwaja Yunus was tortured and died in police custody, and implicated officers in the cover-up, yet the Sanctioning Authority granted sanction only against four officers. Held that the sanctioning authority must consider the entire material and cannot arbitrarily exclude individuals from prosecution without reasoned justification (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the decision of the Sanctioning Authority to grant sanction to prosecute only respondent Nos. 5 to 8 and to refuse sanction against respondent Nos. 3 and 9 to 14 is arbitrary, discriminatory, or based on non-application of mind, and thus liable to be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Judicial review of sanction orders under Article 226
- Sanctioning authority must apply mind to entire material
- Arbitrary or discriminatory sanction is amenable to writ jurisdiction
- Custodial disappearance shifts burden of explanation to police
- Selective sanction without reasons vitiates decision
