I call upon the Attorney-General to state why there has been no inquest into the death of S. Bala Murugan until now.
Section 334 of the Criminal Procedure Code states clearly that an inquiry shall be held where a person dies in the custody of the police and section 339 of the same code gives the Public Prosecutor powers to direct that an inquiry be held in order to determine the cause and circumstances connected with the said death.
It is obvious that these provisions express the serious view which Parliament takes in respect of deaths in custody and the Public Prosecutor as the guardian of justice is specifically empowered to ensure that these provisions are enforced.
The EAIC is currently holding an inquiry into the matter. I agree that the EAIC inquiry can proceed despite there being no inquest as yet.
But the reports from the EAIC proceedings are very troubling.
That being the case, the question which arises is why is there no inquest into the matter?
This is a matter of public importance.
People are entitled to know what the Attorney-General has to say. They are entitled to know why in a case in which express provisions are made for the Attorney-General to act and where those provisions exist to ensure that deaths in custody are accounted for, no inquest has yet been held.
It is all the more important for the Attorney-General to respond as the death in this case occurred in police custody at a police station.
Members of the public must be assured that police stations are safe. It is for this reason that such provisions exist, to ascertain the causes and circumstances connected with the death and to hold those responsible accountable.
An open inquiry in this form also serves as a deterrent against incidents like these re-occuring. It is a forum by which shortcomings in police stations which result in these incidents are exposed and dealt with.
So why, in this case has no inquest been held as yet?