Kiran Raj

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by an appellant appearing in person who alleged that he was subjected to harmful radiation and surveillance technologies within India, causing physical and financial harm.  The matter was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench comprising Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar. The appeal was filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the order passed on 28 August 2024 in W.P. No. 8072 of 2024. The Division Bench observed that the writ Court had considered the issues with reference to the pleadings of the parties and that no cause had been made out to grant any of the reliefs sought by the appellant.

The appellant, Boopalan B, appeared in person and identified himself as an ex-serviceman. He submitted that he was previously operating a restaurant business and had suffered a loss allegedly due to interference by military intelligence and other agencies using advanced radiation technology. He stated that he had been suffering from what he described as Havana Syndrome for several years and attributed this condition to the use of high-frequency microwave radiation within the territory of India.

Also Read: Supreme Court Sets Aside Convictions in Gujarat Riots Case, “No Evidence to Infer Membership of Unlawful Assembly from Mere Presence”

In W.P. No. 8072 of 2024, the appellant had sought a direction to the respondents to (i) conduct an enquiry on Havana Syndrome in India and prevent any such high-frequency microwave radiations travelling inside the territory of India, (ii) provide compensation of ₹60 lakhs for the alleged targeting through the use of radiation in relation to the loss of his restaurant business, and (iii) recommend that the Central Government make a law on Artificial Intelligence to protect the citizens of India.

The writ petition named five respondents, including various arms of the Union of India through their respective Secretaries: the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Telecommunication and IT, and the Department of Space and ISRO. The State of Delhi was also named as a respondent in respect of the Delhi Police.

The appellant stated before the Court that “he is an Ex-Serviceman [and] was running a restaurant and sustained loss.” He alleged that “in view of the high frequency microwave radiations used by the Defence Space Agency against him, he is suffering health issues.”

The appellant described a range of symptoms which he attributed to this alleged targeting. The judgment recorded: “The grievances of the appellant is that he is suffering from Havana Syndrome for few years and he can feel the unknown high frequency microwave radiations across his body including hitting on spinal area, harming on eyes, tongue and nose, electricity shock on teeths hitting on brain, headache chilling, itching on body smelling, heating by emitting infrared rays, severe aches on his body.”

The appellant did not file any medical documentation or diagnostic records to support his health-related claims. The Division Bench recorded: “Pertinently, the appellant has not produced any medical records to establish such reactions in his body.”

The Court further noted the nature of the core allegations, recording: “The allegation is that Defence Space Agency is targeting him with the help of radiations, which is causing harmful effects on his body.”

In response, a counter affidavit was filed by the Ministry of Telecommunication and IT, one of the respondents. The Court summarised the contents of the affidavit as follows: “By using this technology, the respondents can track every moment of his life even when he is inside a building and those who are targeting him with the help of this radiation can also increase or decrease the intensity of the radiation with ease and increase the intensity of radiation will give him severe headache.”

However, the Court noted the absence of any supporting evidence for these claims. The judgment stated: “In this regard, the appellant has not attached or produced any evidences in support of these statements and does not even know who is targeting him.”

The Division Bench referred to the content of the statements presented by the appellant and described their nature as follows: “The statements of the appellant are in nature of disclosing the potential of a (unknown) technology, are found hypothetical and without any evidence.”

In support of his claims, the appellant attached a document published by The Harvard Gazette, which he marked as Annexure C. Referring to this annexure, the Court recorded: “The appellant has stated that Havana Technology was first used by Cuba on USA diplomats which became serious issue in 2016 by making more than 200 diplomats family as victim of this and whereas he has also attached The Harvard Gazette as Annexure C in the typed set of papers in the present writ petition as evidence.”

The Court examined the referenced article and noted that it did not conclusively support the petitioner’s allegations. The judgment recorded: “In this regard, it is submitted that the said Gazette itself, inter-alia mentions that intelligence agencies have been unable to determine what's behind the incident.”

It further stated: “Further police in Vienna are investigating the incidents, that the cause of illness has not been identified and that a 2018 FBI report on the Havana embassy victims declared their conditions psychologically driven most likely due to stress.”

The Court also referred to the geographical and jurisdictional limits of the case, noting: “The above statement of the petitioner pertains to possible incidents beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India, which are outside the purview of this Department.”

Also Read: Petitioner Cannot Be Made to Suffer Due to Arbitrator’s Termination: Himachal Pradesh HC Finds Sufficient Cause to Extend Mandate Beyond 12 Months Owing to COVID-19 and Administrative Delays

The Division Bench considered the findings of the writ Court and reviewed the materials and pleadings in the case. After doing so, it recorded: “The learned Single Judge also considered these factors and formed an opinion that the appellant has not established any cause for considering the relief as sought for.”

The Division Bench recorded that it was in agreement with the view of the writ Court. The judgment concluded: “This Court has concurred the view taken by the writ Court and consequently the writ appeal stands dismissed.”

.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For Respondents: Mr. T. L. Thirumalaisamy, Central Government Standing Counsel

Case Title: Boopalan B v. Union of India and Others
Case Number: W.A. No. 3686 of 2024
Bench: Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar

[Read/Download order]