JUDGMENT : M. Sathyanarayanan, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to handover the investigation to CBI in respect of the suicidal deaths caused from the year 2006 onwards in IIT-Madras, on the basis of the representation given by the petitioner dated 23.11.2019 and pass further orders.) 1. The petitioner claims to be the National President of Loktantarik Yuva Janathadal, Kerala and in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he would aver among other things that from the year 2006 onwards, 14 students had committed suicide in IIT Campus and as far as the death of Fathima Lateef is concerned, there is religious discrimination and she faced harassment at the hands of some of the professors and in her mobile phone, she had named some professors in messages and despite that not even disciplinary action has been initiated against the professors concerned by the Management of IIT. 2. The petitioner would further aver that the present investigation done by the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai city may not be fair in respect of such serious offence and that apart, it is high time that IIT, Madras Campus shall put some proper and effective mechanism in place to give periodical counseling to students and also identify students who exhibit symptoms to take away their own life. The petitioner, in this regard, has also submitted a representation dated 23.11.2019 to the official respondents and despite receipt and acknowledgment, no response is forthcoming and hence, came forward to file this writ petition. 3. Mr.D.Rajagopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the deceased Fatima Lateef, who admittedly had excellent academic career, faced religious discrimination at the hands of some of the professors working in IIT, Madras Campus and the cell phone, which was the subject matter of investigation was seized, wherein she had named some professors in messages as to the continued harassment meted out to her and despite such specific instances, IIT administration is yet to initiate any disciplinary action against them and that apart, investigation also is not proceeding on right lines for the reason that IIT, being a premier educational institution, is putting up pressure as the issue involves their reputation also. It is also the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that suicides of students studying in IIT, Madras becoming a routine affair and it is high time that proper and effective mechanism shall be put in place to prevent such kind of occurrences and in the light of controversies generated and conflicting opinion as to whether the death of Fathima Lateef was due to suicide or homicidal hanging and in order to ensure fair, proper and effective investigation, it shall be entrusted to CBI. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others [ (2015) 9 SCC 795 ] (ii) E.Sivakumar v. Union of India and Others [ 2018 (7) SCC 365 ]. 4. Per contra, Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that between 2008 and 2019, 16 students had committed suicide by hanging and it may on account of the fact that they are unable to withstand the pressure to perform better and other related issues and insofar as the investigation is concerned, all relevant materials have been collected and subject to rigorous scrutiny and in the absence of any specific allegation as to malafide, investigation cannot be transferred to CBI at the threshold and prays for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. This Court has paid it’s best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the entire materials placed before it. 6. Kotturpuram Police Station has registered a case with regard to the demise of Fathima Lateef in Crime No.394 of 2019 on 09.11.2019 under Section 174 CrPC and within a short span of time, it was transferred to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, for investigation. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 2 to 4, crucial materials have been gathered and investigation is also proceeding on right lines and in respect of cognizable offence, outer time limit cannot be framed for completion of investigation and also undertakes to file status report as to the progress being made in this regard. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 2 to 4, crucial materials have been gathered and investigation is also proceeding on right lines and in respect of cognizable offence, outer time limit cannot be framed for completion of investigation and also undertakes to file status report as to the progress being made in this regard. The petitioner alleges that the deceased Fathima Lateef had suffered religious discrimination and harassment at the hands of some of the professors of IIT, Madras and lot of mysteries surrounding her tragic demise and also generated lot of controversies and as such, investigation shall be transferred to CBI for fair, effective and speedy investigation. 7. It is a settled position of law that if the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is convinced that the investigating officer in exercising his legal powers, which resulted in tainted investigation, it shall exercise it’s power to prevent such kind of illegality in investigation. 8. It is also a well settled position of law that the High Court, in exercise of it’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the investigating agency to investigate the case in accordance with its views as that would amount to unwarranted interference, equally no such directions could be issued in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. [See D.Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Anr., 2009 (12) Scale 483 , para 9]. 9. A Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decision in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors. [ (2010) 3 SCC 571 ], observed in paragraph No.70 as follows: “Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations.” 10. Section 156(3)CrPC provides for check by Magistrates on police to perform their duties and if the said official finds that police have not done their duties or investigate properly, can always monitor the same. [See Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907 ]. 11. In K.V.Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai & Others [ 2013 (5) CTC 310 ], the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with the issue relating to transfer of case from State Investigating Agency to CBI and observed Paragraph Nos.6 and 8 as under: 6. The issue involved herein, is no more res integra. This Court has time and again dealt with the issue under what circumstances the investigation can be transferred from the State investigating agency to any other independent investigating agency like CBI. It has been held that the power of transferring such investigation must be in rare and exceptional cases where the court finds it necessary in order to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where investigation by the State police lacks credibility and it is necessary for having “a fair, honest and complete investigation”, and particularly, when it is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the State agencies. Where the investigation has already been completed and charge sheet has been filed, ordinarily superior courts should not reopen the investigation and it should be left open to the court, where the charge sheet has been filed, to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Under no circumstances, should the court make any expression of its opinion on merit relating to any accusation against any individual. (Vide: Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1992) 1 SCC 397 ; R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 38 ; Punjab and Haryana Bar Association, Chandigarh through its Secretary v. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 1023 ; Vineet Narain & Ors., v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1996 SC 3386 ; Union of India & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar Modi & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 314 ; Disha v. State of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 3168 ; Rajender Singh Pathania & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., (2011) 13 SCC 329 ; and State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & Ors. etc., AIR 2012 SC 364 ). 8. In State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, AIR 2010 SC 1476 , a Constitution Bench of this Court has clarified that extraordinary power to transfer the investigation from State investigating agency to any other investigating agency must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. (See also: Ashok Kumar Todi v. Kishwar Jahan & Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1254 ). 12. The decision relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader in S.Sivakumar v. Union of India and Ors. [ 2018 (7) SCC 365 ] pertains to transfer of investigation to CBI in a criminal case concerning illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala, Tobacco and/or Nicotine. It is to be noted that since the allegations therein involve high ranking officials and tentacles of conspiracy in commission of crime transcending beyond the State of Tamil Nadu and into different States and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered transfer of investigation to CBI. 13. It is to be noted that since the allegations therein involve high ranking officials and tentacles of conspiracy in commission of crime transcending beyond the State of Tamil Nadu and into different States and therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ordered transfer of investigation to CBI. 13. In Mithilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Others [ (2015) 9 SCC 795 ], in paragraph No.12, it was observed as follows: 12. Even so the availability of power and its exercise are two distinct matters. This Court does not direct transfer of investigation just for the asking nor is transfer directed only to satisfy the ego or vindicate the prestige of a party interested in such investigation. The decision whether transfer should or should not be ordered rests on the Court’s satisfaction whether the facts and circumstances of a given case demand such an order. No hard-and-fast rule has been or can possibly be prescribed for universal application to all cases. Each case will obviously depend upon its own facts. What is important is that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction to direct transfer remains sensitive to the principle that transfers are not ordered just because a party seeks to lead the investigator to a given conclusion. It is only when there is a reasonable apprehension about justice becoming a victim because of shabby or partisan investigation that the Court may step in and exercise its extraordinary powers. The sensibility of the victims of the crime or their next of kin is not wholly irrelevant in such situations. After all transfer of investigation to an outside agency does not imply that the transferee agency will necessarily, much less falsely implicate anyone in the commission of the crime. That is particularly so when transfer is ordered to an outside agency perceived to be independent of influences, pressures and pulls that are commonplace when State Police investigates matters of some significance. The confidence of the party seeking transfer in the outside agency in such cases itself rests on the independence of that agency from such or similar other considerations. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. It follows that unless the Court sees any design behind the prayer for transfer, the same must be seen as an attempt only to ensure that the truth is discovered. The hallmark of a transfer is the perceived independence of the transferee more than any other consideration. Discovery of truth is the ultimate purpose of any investigation and who can do it better than an agency that is independent. 14. The incident took place on 09.11.2019 and the case was registered by Kotturpuram Police Station in Crime No.394 of 2019 under Section 174 CrPC and it was transferred to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai city. According to the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, headway made in the investigation and the cell phone possessed by the deceased was seized and it is also subject to forensic analysis and expeditious steps have already been taken to conclude the investigation at the earliest. 15. No doubt, brilliant academic career of an young student came to an end under tragic circumstances and this Court can also understand the feelings / sentiments of the parents of the deceased. 16. The statistics provided by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 2 to 4 would disclose that between February, 2008 and November, 2019, 16 students of IIT, hostellers had committed suicide, may be on account of stress and other related facts and unable to perform to their full potential. It is high time that the administration of IIT shall make every endeavour to give periodical psychiatric counseling to the students and the teaching faculties are also under obligation to motivate/encourage the students to perform better and permanent solution is to be found as expeditiously as possible so as to prevent loss of young lives. It is also suggested that such psychiatric counselling should be part of the course in all the educational institutions in order to prevent such incidents of suicide by way of instilling more confidence into the young mind. 17. The tragic demise of Fathima Lateef had generated controversies, agitations and dharnas and therefore, it is also suggested that the investigation of the case may be transferred to a specialized investigating agency, namely Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID). 18. 17. The tragic demise of Fathima Lateef had generated controversies, agitations and dharnas and therefore, it is also suggested that the investigation of the case may be transferred to a specialized investigating agency, namely Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID). 18. The above cited decisions also lay down the proposition that transfer of investigation from State Investigating Agency to another Investigating Agency like CBI can be done only in rare and exceptional cases, especially if it is found that the investigation prima facie found to be tainted and as of now, no such material has been placed before this Court warranting transfer of investigation to CBI. 19. This Court also cannot issue any positive direction as to the manner in which the investigation is to be carried out, as it is always open to the jurisdictional Magistrate to monitor the investigation and even if Final Report is filed, it is open to the Magistrate concerned to order further investigation, if he is satisfied that the investigation and collection of materials have not proceeded on right lines. 20. This Court cannot issue a mandamus on the basis of mere sympathy or sentiment and however, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as well as the agony being undergone by the parents of the deceased, the Investigating Agency concerned is directed to file their Status Report before this Court as to the progress being made in the investigation. 21. This Writ Petition is dismissed, subject to above observations. No costs. Call on 22.01.2020 for filing the Status Report.