Kerala Union of Working Journalists Vs.

Union of India

CITATION (2021) 5 SCC 311

DATE OF JUDGMENT 28 April 2021

COURT Supreme Court of India

APPELLANT Kerala Union of Working Journalists

RESPONDENT Union of India

BENCH Chief Justice N V Ramana, Justice Surya

INTRODUCTION

In this case, a writ petition was filed for the release of Sidhique Kappan, son of Muhammad,
a journalist and member of the Kerala Union of Working Journalists, under article 32. It was
alleged that he was unlawfully detained without notice or authorization. However, the state
of Uttar Pradesh vehemently refuted the allegation, asserting that the detenu had been duly
apprehended. The respondent state initially opposed the petition's maintainability (with rare
exceptions). Nevertheless, the accused's wife requested her husband's immediate release due
to his failing health, and the bench ordered him to go to the hospital for treatment before
returning to the Mathura Jail once he recovered.

On September 14, 2020, a Gang Rape and Assault was committed. The four men, who were
from a higher caste, pulled the victim, injuring her spinal cord in the process. The victim's
statement, which was recorded on September 22 and included her allegations of being raped
and being strangled when she tried to resist, was recorded on September 20. The victim's
family claims that the police initially humiliated the victim and her family and rejected their
claims. After being brought to the hospital, she was transferred to Delhi. September 29 was
the victim's death date.

In this instance, Sidhique Kappan, a journalist affiliated with the Kerala Union of Working
Journalists, was en route to Hathras to cover a gang rape and murder occurrence. A 19-year-
old Dalit girl was viciously attacked and gang-raped by her neighbours. She eventually
passed away and was cremated without her family's permission. This case garnered
international notice. On October 5, 2020, Uttar Pradesh police detained him under the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act on the grounds that he was a popular front for India.
Additionally, he was charged with possessing items that could cause a breach of peace or
provoke violence. Additionally, the police said that Kappan had nothing to do with
journalism and that his ID card had expired. The Kerala Union of Working Journalists filed a
writ suit, alleging that there was no order or notification issued before the arrest and that he
was placed in unlawful custody. The state of Uttar Pradesh refuted the allegations, even going
so far as to file an additional affidavit on December 9, 2020, stating that the accused had been
duly arrested.

The respondent state opposed the petitioner association's maintainability; however, prior to
the initiation of proceedings, the accused's wife requested his immediate release due to health
concerns. The accused's safety and well-being are of utmost importance, and he must be in
Mathura Jail until he recovers, at which point he will be free to seek the appropriate remedy.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Kerala Union of Working Journalists filed a habeas corpus writ on behalf of the
defendants. The accused was a journalist who was detained by the police on October
5, 2020, while travelling to the state, in accordance with section 107 of the 1973 Code
of Criminal Procedure. In an affidavit filed on November 20, 2020, the respondent
state refuted the allegations of an unlawful arrest. A second affidavit, filed on
December 9, 2020, provided an explanation of the lawful arrest made in accordance
with sections 107–151 of the code of criminal procedure. On October 7, 2020, the FIR
was registered at the police station in the Manth district of Mathura under Sections
153A, 295A, and 124A of the Indian Penal Code, Section 7,14 of Unlawful Activity
prevention Act, 1967 and under sections 65,72 and 76 of Information Technology
Act,2008.
2. The respondent initially opposed the petitioners association's maintainability as well,
but this argument became moot when a number of things happened. Chief among
them was the accused wife, Mrs. Raihanath, who requested her husband's immediate
release due to health concerns. In addition to the investigation's conclusion, charge
sheets were also filed.
 3. In order to release Kappan on bail due to his health issues, the petitioner association
submitted an application for an order to be issued during the litigation. The petitioner
association also provided a report on Kappan's medical record at the court's request.
which states that on April 21, 2021, he tested positive for COVID-19. In addition to
having a fever, he had an injury for which a surgeon's intervention was advised.
4. When the accused was brought to the hospital, it was discovered that he had a number
of medical conditions, including diabetes, high blood pressure, a heart condition, and
others. However, the subsequent medical record and a supplemental affidavit proved
that he had tested negative for COVID-19.
5. Records state that following the accused's arrest, a formal complaint was filed and the
accused was presented before the court. The petition was dismissed because the
investigation was finished and the charge sheet contained more than 5,000 pages. The
detainee was also granted alternative remedies, such as the ability to petition the court
for the granting of bail and the redress of grievances, and requested that the arrestee
be taken to the hospital and returned to custody once he had recovered. The bench
refrained from commenting on the merits of contentious issues.
ISSUES RAISED
1. Sidhique Kappan, the son of Muhammad, was unlawfully detained without warning,
and a writ of habeas corpus was filed to free him.
2. Despite the ongoing litigation, the petitioner's association submitted an application to
be released on bail because of his medical concerns.
CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT
3. Senior learned attorney Mr. Kapil Sibal argued on the appellant's side that he should
be permitted to travel to Kerala to see his mother, who was reportedly in critical
condition and had little prospect of survival
1. On behalf of the petitioner, the learned attorney contended that the arrest is unlawful
and was made without any prior notice.
2. Due to the petitioner's serious health issues, the learned counsel argued on his behalf
that he should be freed on bond. The report that was also submitted to the court
revealed that the accused was COVID POSITIVE and had suffered a brain injury.
CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT
1. The state of Uttar Pradesh was represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned solicitor
general, who contended that it was evident from the records that the accused was
 brought before the jurisdictional court subsequent to his arrest and that the FIR was
only filed after that.
2. The following morning, another set of medical documents demonstrating that the test
was COVID NEGATIVE were presented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned solicitor
general for the state of Uttar Pradesh.
3. The learned solicitor general, Mr. Tushar Mehta, further underlined that the accused
will receive much-needed medical care, that additional facilities would be provided,
and that everyone has the right to live, including those who are being tried.
JUDGEMENT

After considering all allegations, arguments, and pleas in this case, the Supreme Court
declared that while a number of issues were raised, the investigation was restricted to giving
the accused access to much-needed medical care. It was wise to proceed with the current
petition because their records demonstrated that the accused was presented before the
jurisdictional authorities, and that it was only after that that a formal complaint was lodged,
an investigation was finished, and a charge sheet was submitted. Nonetheless, the petitioners
are free to ask the court for a bail award.

The petitioner must be moved to All India Institute of Medical Science or any other
government hospital in order to receive proper medical care. After he recovers, he must be
returned to Mathura Jail. He is also entitled to challenge the proceedings; if he files such a
petition, the court will decide it on its own merits and in accordance with the law, with no
opinions expressed on contentious issues.

Sidhique Kappan was also allowed to travel to Kerala for five days to visit his sick mother,
but he was not allowed to speak with any media or social media during that time.

ANALYSIS

In light of the fact that Siddique Kappan was not unlawfully held, a proper investigation had
been conducted, and a charge sheet had been submitted, the court decided not to become
involved, looked over the specific facts, and concentrated primarily on providing the accused
with appropriate medical care and relief. Meanwhile, he received a COVID-19 positive
diagnosis. Additionally, according to his medical report, he may have diabetes, a heart
condition, high blood pressure, and physical trauma; nevertheless, an additional affidavit
subsequently said that he is COVID negative.
The mere knowledge that other prisoners get comparable assistance cannot dissuade the
court. In this sense, prisoners awaiting trial are also entitled to life. As a result, he will be sent
to the government hospital to receive the right care. When medical professionals deem him
competent, he ought to be returned to the jail where he can get the legal remedies.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one may be deprived of their life or
personal freedom unless it is done so in accordance with a legally recognised process. In this
instance, I value the court's ruling in addition to agreeing with it. According to the ruling in
this instance, people have the fundamental right to life and the right to obtain the necessary
medical care and attention even when they are being tried. The accused was found to be
lawfully detained in the courtroom; as a result, the court did not intervene with the facts of
the case, instead providing instructions and directives about medical care, the accused's right
to appear in court, and the granting of bail.

REFERENCES

1. Live law, https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/kerala-union-of-working-journalists-vs-

This Article is written by Yashi Gupta student of Government Law College, University of
Mumbai; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.