Before a Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar on October 5, 2026, a petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation concerning 74 cases of unnatural deaths in and around Dharmasthala argued that the Special Investigation Team must register First Information Reports and investigate the cases immediately, rather than waiting for the Director General and Inspector General of Police to transfer them.
The petitioner, the mother of an alleged rape and murder victim from 2012, presented documentary evidence to support her position. An SIT report dated March 24, 2026, and a letter dated August 31, 2026, obtained through an RTI application, showed that the SIT had claimed it possessed no suo motu authority to investigate the cases. This position directly contradicts a Government Order issued on August 6, 2025, which declared the SIT a police station.
The Core Contradiction
The petitioner's argument rests on a fundamental legal inconsistency. If the SIT has been declared a police station by formal government notification, it should possess the statutory authority that flows from such designation. Under police station status, the SIT would be bound to register FIRs upon receiving information that discloses a cognizable offence. The petitioner's counsel challenged the SIT's position that it must await transfer orders from senior police leadership before acting on the 74 cases.
The Government Order of August 6, 2025, forms the legal foundation of the petitioner's submission. Once an entity is declared a police station, it acquires the powers and duties ordinarily vested in any police station under the criminal procedure framework. A police station does not require external permission to register an FIR when information disclosing a cognizable offence is received. To suggest otherwise would render the police station designation meaningless and create an artificial impediment to the filing of FIRs.
The SIT's Position and Its Problems
The SIT's claim of lacking suo motu investigation authority stands at odds with its declared status. The March 24, 2026 report and the August 31, 2026 letter represent official positions taken by the SIT, yet they appear to contradict the legal effect of the August 6, 2025 Government Order. This discrepancy raises questions about whether the SIT has properly understood or accepted its own designation as a police station.
The petitioner presented these documents to the Division Bench as evidence that the SIT was effectively refusing to act despite possessing the legal authority to do so. Each day that passes without investigation means evidence may be lost, witnesses may become unavailable, and the prospects of justice for the alleged victims diminish. In a PIL involving 74 unnatural deaths, the urgency of action is plain.
The State's Response and Timeline
During the hearing, the State sought an additional two weeks to file objections to the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner's counsel opposed this request, arguing that further delay would be unjustifiable given the circumstances. The State's need for more time to respond suggests that the government had not fully prepared its position or had not anticipated the strength of the petitioner's legal argument.
The two-week extension request reflects the State's apparent lack of readiness to defend the current position. If the government had a clear legal basis for the SIT's inaction, one might expect the State to articulate it swiftly. The request for additional time indicates that the State may need to reconsider its stance or gather further documentation to support its position.
Legal Principles at Stake
The case touches on fundamental principles of criminal procedure and administrative law. When a government declares an entity to be a police station, it confers upon that entity all the powers and responsibilities that attach to such status. A police station is not merely an administrative unit; it is a functional authority with specific statutory powers under the criminal procedure framework.
The power to register an FIR is not discretionary in the way that investigative decisions might be. When information disclosing a cognizable offence is received by a police station, the station has a duty to register the FIR. This duty is not suspended pending transfer orders or administrative approvals from higher authority. If the SIT, as a declared police station, has received information about cognizable offences, it is bound to act.
The petitioner's argument also raises questions about the purpose of declaring the SIT a police station in the first place. If the declaration was meant to facilitate investigation of the Dharmasthala cases, then requiring the SIT to wait for transfer orders would defeat that purpose. If the declaration was merely administrative and the SIT remains operationally dependent on external orders, then the significance of the Government Order becomes questionable.
The Petitioner's Standing and Motivation
The petitioner's status as the mother of an alleged 2012 rape and murder victim gives her direct personal interest in the outcome. She is not a distant observer seeking to vindicate abstract principles, but rather someone with a concrete stake in ensuring that the 74 unnatural death cases are properly investigated. This standing strengthens her position in the PIL, as she represents not only her own interests but potentially those of other families affected by the alleged deaths.
The RTI correspondence that the petitioner obtained and presented to the court represents proactive litigation strategy. By securing official communications from the SIT itself, the petitioner demonstrated that the SIT's inaction was not a matter of ambiguity or misunderstanding, but rather a deliberate position taken by the investigating authority. This documentary evidence is more persuasive than mere assertions about what the SIT might do.
What Comes Next
The Division Bench will need to resolve the conflict between the SIT's claimed lack of suo motu authority and its declared status as a police station. The State's two-week request for filing objections means the court will likely issue a substantive order only after hearing the government's full response. The petitioner's opposition to the extension suggests her counsel believes the legal position is already clear and that further delay serves no purpose.
The outcome of this hearing will be closely watched by other PILs and investigations that depend on similar statutory designations of investigating authorities. The court's interpretation of what it means to declare an entity a police station will set a precedent for future cases involving investigative teams, special cells, and other specialized units created to handle particular categories of offences or incidents.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.