The provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) will continue to hold good against P. Jayarajan, the CPI(M) Kannur district secretary, and others in the Kathirur Manoj murder case.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday turned down the contention of Mr. Jayarajan that it was the State government and not the Central government who was the competent authority to give sanction under UAPA.
The CBI had arraigned him as an accused in the supplementary charge-sheet filed in the case. It was on September 1, 2014, that Manoj, an Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) functionary, was murdered.
At the same time, the court held that the cognisance taken by the Sessions Court, Thalassery, in the case without producing the Sanction Order from a competent authority was bad in law.
The Singe Judge also ordered that the court, where the final report has been filed, should apply its mind and decide whether the cognisance could be taken in the case after going through the final report and other documents. Any question in the validity of the Sanction Order from the competent authority could be raised at the time of trial, the court held.
The State government had contended that the CBI required its concurrence for invoking the provisions of UAPA in the case. It also took a position that the provisions of UAPA was not attracted in the case.
Referring to this stand, the court noted that the State cannot lament about its concurrence after it had happily handed over the investigation in the case to the agency.
In cases where a CBI investigation was ordered and it was resisted by the State government, it cannot be said that the CBI had to obtain sanction from the State government, the judge noted.
The court had earlier dismissed a petition filed by the first accused in the case and directed the CBI to proceed with the investigation invoking the provisions of UAPA. It was unfair for the State government to take a view that the case did not attract the provisions of the Act even after the court dismissing the petition filed by the first accused without even admitting it, the judge noted.
Even the first accused had not challenged the decision. However, the State challenged it. The State appeared to be more loyal than the king, the court held.
