M.P. Ashraf vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 1170 Ker

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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