The Tamil Nadu government has moved the Supreme Court challenging a recent Madras High Court ruling that put restrictions on the issuance of summons to Bharatiya Janata Party State Organisation Secretary Kesava Vinayagan. The case pertains to an alleged cash haul.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued notice to Kesava Vinayagam, State Organising Secretary, BJP Tamil Nadu, on July 15.

"Issue notice for the limited purpose of clarifying the last line of paragraph 8 of the impugned order, returnable on 20.09.2024," the Court ordered. Accordingly, the matter will be heard on September 20.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the Tamil Nadu.

Pertinently, on June 6, the Madras High Court had declined to quash the FIR against the BJP leader. However, it had restrained any further disturbance to Vinayagan unless substantiated material justified his presence. The Court had also underscored its role in protecting personal liberty and privacy, directing the Investigating Officer to proceed cautiously and seek court permission before summoning Vinayagan again, if necessary.

"Roving enquiry under the guise of investigation cannot be permitted. Though the prayer to quash the FIR is not maintainable, this Court is vested with power to protect personal liberty and privacy of the petitioner herein and therefore, directed the Investigating Officer in this case not to disturb the petitioner any further, unless and until material collected during the investigation warrants his presence. Even if it is so, State can be done it only after obtaining permission by placing the material before this Court why the petitioner be summoned," the Court had said in its Order dated June 6.

The case pertains to the alleged seizure of over Rs. 4 crores from three individuals travelling on a train bound for Tirunelveli, suspected of being intended for election purposes. Vinayagan, an office bearer of the political party to which the candidate belongs, challenged the registration of the FIR citing procedural violations and alleged that Sections 171(C), 171(E), 171(F), and 188 of the IPC were not cognizable offences.

During the proceedings, before the High Court had noted that despite Vinayagan's participation in the investigation and submission of his statement, the Investigating Officer had issued a summons under Section 91 Cr.P.C., seeking additional details including mobile handsets, SIM cards, and travel information. The Court had also criticized this as an attempt to conduct a roving inquiry and emphasized that such actions could not be permitted under the guise of investigation.

The State government, in response, had argued the necessity to ascertain Vinayagan's involvement due to significant findings linking the seized money to individuals associated with BJP leadership in Tamil Nadu.

Cause Title: State Resp. By The Deputy Superintendent of Police v. Kesava Vinayagam & Anr.

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, Advocates Sabarish Subramanian (AOR), C. Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Sarathraj B, Danish Saifi

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Surya KantJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Sukriti Mishra