Case Summary: S. Nambi Narayanan vs Siby Mathews & Others
Citation: (2018) 9 SCC 804 | Date of Judgment: 14-09-2018
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Dipak Misra, CJ; A.M. Khanwilkar, J; D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
Case Nos.: Civil Appeal Nos. 6637-6638 of 2018
Final Decision: Appeals Allowed
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=2362817
Legal Provisions Referred
• Article 21 – Protection of life and personal liberty
• CrPC Section 173(2), Section 357 – Final report, compensation
• Indian Official Secrets Act, 1923 – Sections 3, 4 – Espionage
• Foreigners Act, 1946 – Section 14 – Violation of visa norms
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the investigation conducted by the Kerala Police violated fundamental rights under Article 21.
2. Whether malicious prosecution and custodial torture entitle the victim to compensation under constitutional tort law.
3. Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the erring police officials who fabricated charges.
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Reasoning)
• The arrest and torture of Nambi Narayanan were based on unfounded espionage charges, lacking credible evidence (Para 5–7).
• CBI concluded that the allegations were baseless, and no material evidence was found against the scientist (Para 6–7).
• Kerala Government’s refusal to act on the CBI’s report and its attempt to reinvestigate was against good governance and indicated malice (Para 9).
• The State failed to act even after NHRC directed interim compensation (Para 10).
• The Division Bench of Kerala HC erred in giving a clean chit to the officers without evaluating the findings of CBI and NHRC (Para 13–15).
Final Ruling
• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the Kerala High Court Division Bench order, and upheld the Single Judge’s direction for reconsideration of disciplinary action.
• The Court ordered a compensation of ₹50 lakhs to be paid to the appellant by the State of Kerala for the violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 (Para 28, 29).
• The Court recommended the constitution of a committee headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge to take appropriate action against erring officers (Para 29).
Key Paragraphs
• Para 5–7: Findings of CBI about false allegations and lapses in investigation.
• Para 9: Supreme Court’s previous ruling in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) quashing re-investigation.
• Para 13–15: Division Bench's reasoning and its flaws.
• Para 16–20: Argument of malicious prosecution and violation of fundamental rights.
• Para 28–29: Supreme Court’s directions for compensation and accountability.