IIT KGP Student Death | Law Doesn't Envisage Appointment Of Amicus Curiae To Assist Experts/ Investigating Officers: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court today, partly allowed the appeals moved by the State of West Bengal and IIT Kharagpur, in a case pertaining to the death of a student under allegedly suspicious circumstances at the IIT.

A writ petition was filed by the deceased’s father for the Court’s intervention into the investigation of the student’s death. Appeal was preferred by the State on grounds that while no objections were raised on the conduct of the investigation which found the death to be a suicide, yet the Court interfered by ordering a second post mortem, which labelled the death to be a homicide.

State argued that the single-judge had interfered with the investigation by appointing an amicus curiae to assist the doctor carrying out the second post-mortem, as well as by replacing the initial investigation team with a newly constituted one.

Upon hearing the various contesting claims of the IIT, State as well as the parents of the student, a division-bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya admitted the appeals, and ordered:

“It is settled legal principle that change of investigating agency is done in rarest of rare cases, and the fundamental principle on which the change in investigation is ordered, is to ensure that the person who has lodged the complaint/FIR has faith in the system that the investigation is being conducted in a proper manner and is not derailed by any external force. However in the instant case, the factual scenario is a little different. There was a first-post-mortem report, and then a second one was conducted upon orders of the court, and this court has recorded the submissions made by the State that it does not resist the direction for conduct of the second post-mortem. In such circumstance the second report would supersede the first. Therefore, the investigation should proceed based on the second report.

Single-judge also appointed an amicus curiae to assist the officer who carried out the second post-mortem and gave liberty to the new investigation team to approach the amicus for assistance. In our opinion an amicus is appointed to assist the court, and it may not auger well, if a member of the Bar is assisting an investigating officer, or expert who carried out post-mortem, as practise of legal profession would not envisage such directions from a Court. It may be well open to anyone to seek services of members of the Bar to seek advice in legal aspects. We are of the view that the role of the amicus is completed, and the advocate shall have no role in further proceedings of this issue. Accordingly the appeals are partly allowed.”

The State had argued that during the hearing before the single-bench, no aspersions had been cast on the investigating officer or the investigation carried out by the State, but after the findings of the investigation that the death was a suicide, the Court upon the petitioners’ prayer, had directed the body to be exhumed for a second post-mortem.

State contended that for this second post-mortem, the Court had also appointed an amicus curiae to assist the officer carrying out the post-mortem, and that the findings of the post-mortem were diametrically opposed to the earlier report, insofar as it recorded that the death was due to homicide.

It was submitted by the State that upon the findings in the second post-mortem, the Court reconstituted the investigation team by placing a new head, as well as a retired nodal officer and investigating officer, in order to undertake a fresh investigation into the issue with the assistance of the previously appointed amicus.

It was argued by the senior counsel for IIT Kharagpur, that the writ petition filed by the parents of the deceased, was nothing but an attempt to extort money from the institution due to its eminent status.

The senior counsel submitted that the single-judge had repeatedly interfered with the investigation, and that such interferences could be seen in the appointment of the amicus, as well as when the Court reconstituted the investigation team, with police detectives from the ‘homicide division’, thereby creating an inherent bias in the investigation.

It was argued by the petitioners/respondents and amicus curiae, that there was overwhelming evidence derived from forensic analysis that the death of the student was not a suicide but instead a case of homicide.

Upon hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court partly allowed the appeals, admitted the matters and modified the order of the single bench to the limited extent of allowing the appointment of the new head of investigation, but setting aside the appointment of detectives from the homicide department on the investigation team, and instead directed the new head of investigation to appoint “young and energetic officers who would be able to carry out a thorough and impartial investigation.”

Case: The Indian Institute Of Technology, Kharagpur And Anr Vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Coram: Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharya