Kerala High Court
M.P. Ashraf vs State Of Kerala on 18 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18082 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
M.P. ASHRAF
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O KUNJIMARAKKARKUTTY, SECRETARY,
INDIAN UNION MUSLIM LEAGUE,
TANUR CONSTITUENCY COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT
MOOSANTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM AMSOM,
TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR
SHRI.K.A.JALEEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2 ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695001
2025:KER:53159
W.P.(C) No.18082/2025
:2:
3 HON'BLE JUSTICE V.K. MOHANAN COMMISSION OF
INQUIRY
(TO PROBE IN TO TANUR BOAT TRAGEDY),
GCDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, MARINE DRIVE,
SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.,
PIN - 682031
4 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE DYSP, TANUR,
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302
5 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
KERALA MARITIME BOARD,
SASTHAMANGALAM - PIPINMOODU ROAD,
PIPINMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
BY
SRI. K.P. SUDHEER, SC
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04.06.2025, THE COURT ON 18.07.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:53159
W.P.(C) No.18082/2025
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.18082 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner states that on 07.05.2023 at about 7.30 pm a packed tourist boat overturned near Thoovaltheeram Beach at Tanur in Malappuram. The Boat was capsized due to heavy overload. Twenty two people were drowned and died. The Tanur Police registered Crime No.526/2023 against five persons for offences punishable under Sections 280, 212, 337, 338, 109 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC. A Final Report has been filed and the trial is pending.
2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :4:
2. The Government of Kerala issued Ext.P1 Notification dated 19.05.2023 appointing a Commission of Inquiry for enquiring into the cause that led to the boat accident on 07.05.2023 and to propose measures to avoid such disasters in future. The Commission of Inquiry issued a Notification dated 13.11.2023 inviting all persons acquainted with subject matter to furnish statements. The petitioner also submitted a statement and he is recorded as E2 Party in the proceedings. The Commission of Inquiry has started to collect evidence from victims, public and Government officials. About 82 witnesses were examined.
3. The petitioner submits that it is the callous negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Port officials and Kerala Maritime Board which resulted in the tragedy. The petitioner would allege that there was a criminal conspiracy by those officials with the Boat owner for operating the boat service flouting statutory provisions and safety measures.
2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :5:
4. The petitioner states that to find out and book the real persons behind the boat tragedy, Call Data Records of the officers are highly necessary. The Commission of Inquiry has ample power to direct the authorities to produce Call Data Records. The petitioner filed Ext.P3 IA No.27/2025 before the Commission seeking to call for the data showing the phone calls between B1, C1 and C2 parties who are accused numbers 1, 11 and 12 in Crime No.526/2023. The Additional Government Pleader submitted Ext.P4 objection. The CEO, Maritime Board submitted Ext.P5 objection.
5. The Commission of Inquiry dismissed the IA as per Ext.P6 order dated 19.04.2025 holding that even if the call details of the persons concerned are called for, no purpose would be served in elucidating any relevant materials in connection with the terms of reference. The petitioner states that the Commission went wrong in finding that the petitioner has not specifically mentioned the relevancy of Call Data Records.
2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :6:
6. Public interest demands a proper and impartial enquiry. The Call Data Records will not infringe privacy of any persons. The petitioner therefore seeks to quash Ext.P6 and to direct the 3rd respondent to call for the data showing the phone calls between B1, C1 and C2 parties before the Commission and the call details of the mobile phone of the CEO, Maritime Board, Thiruvananthapuram.
7. Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent resisted the writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the applications filed by the petitioner is not sustainable. Examining the Call Data Records contained in the mobile phone used by the officers will amount to infringement of right to privacy, as the Call Data Records will contain private conversations.
8. The respondents further urged that had the petitioner was really interested, he could have collected relevant documents much earlier and produced before the 2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :7: Commission at the appropriate stage. The writ petition is without any merit and it is therefore only to be dismissed.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader representing respondents 1, 2 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
10. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, the Government of Kerala, as per Ext.P1 Notification dated 19.05.2023, appointed the 3rd respondent as Inquiry Commission to inquire into the circumstances which led to the boat accident on 07.05.2023 at Thoovaltheeram Beach. The terms of reference was fixed in Ext.P1 as follows:
(i) To inquire into the circumstances which led to the boat accident happened on 7th May, 2023 at Thoovaltheeram Beach, Tanur in Tirur Taluk in Malappuram District.
(ii) To fix the responsibility of individuals/institutions for the boat accident happened.
(iii) To check whether the prevailing licensing and enforcement systems are sufficient and if not, to submit necessary recommendations.
2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :8:
(iv) To recommend remedial measures for not repeating such accidents in water transport sector in future.
(v) To review the action taken by Departments concerned on the reports submitted by inquiry commissions appointed, subsequent to similar boat accidents happened in the past.
(vi) To inquire into other related matters in connection or arising out of this inquiry.
11. Pursuant to a Notification issued under Rule 5(2)
(b) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972, the petitioner submitted a statement to the Inquiry Commission. The petitioner is described as E2 party in the proceedings. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 IA before the Commission of Inquiry to call for the data showing the phone calls between B1, C1 and C2 parties. The Commission of Inquiry has rejected Ext.P3 application as per Ext.P6 order.
12. In Ext.P6 order, the Commission of Inquiry observed that during the examination of material witnesses, no attempt was made to elicit any discriminative evidence on the basis of the alleged call data. During the cross- examination of IW15, there was no challenge by the 2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 :9: petitioner in respect of the conversation made in the mobile phone of B1, C1 and C2. No question was also asked in the cross-examination as to the alleged conversation. For the afore reasons, the Commission found that there is no force in the prayer made by the petitioner to call for the call data records.
13. The question arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner has a legal right to get the call data records produced before the Commission and whether the Commission was justified in declining the request made by the petitioner. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 provides for appointment of Commissions of Inquiry and for vesting such Commissions with certain powers.
14. Section 4(b) of the Act, 1952 confers on the Commission the the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of requiring the discovery and production of any document.
2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 : 10 : The Commission, under Section 5(2), has the power to require any person, subject to any privilege which may be claimed by that person under any law for the time being in force, to furnish information on such points or matters and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information.
15. The Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is intended for making judicial inquiries into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions as ordered by the appropriate Government. The purpose of the inquiry is to aid the appropriate Government in taking decisions in the subject matter. The Commissions appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 are not courts adjudicating disputes between parties.
16. The petitioner has given statement to the Commission under Section 4 of the Act. Obtaining of such statements is intended to aid effective inquiry into the subject matter. Section 6 of the Act, 1952 protects persons like the 2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 : 11 : petitioner and mandates that no statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement. The petitioner's role before the Commission of Inquiry is therefore akin to a witness. The petitioner has no right to get call data records through the orders of the Commission of Inquiry, though the Commission may, for making effective inquiry, call for such records.
17. In this case, the Commission has come to a conclusion that no purpose will be served if the Call Data Records are brought before the Commission. Therefore, I find that the conclusion of the Commission of Inquiry as contained in Ext.P6 order is just, proper and legal.
The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/25.06.2025 2025:KER:53159 W.P.(C) No.18082/2025 : 12 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18082/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. SRO NO.
594/2023 DATED 19/5/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE PARTIES AND NAMES OF ADVOCATES APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY, DATED NIL Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE IA NO. 27/2025 IN JBJJE 5/2023 DATED 01/04/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/4/25 FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10/4/25 FILED BY THE CEO, MARITIME BOARD Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 27/25 DATED 19/4/25 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY