The Supreme Court Monday issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Kerala government on a petition seeking a CBI probe into what has come to be known as the ice cream parlour sex scandal in the southern state.
The alleged racket in the early 1990s involved an ice-cream parlour in Kozhikode as its base and was dubbed by the media as the "ice cream parlour sex case".
The apex court bench of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice C. Naggapan issued notice on a petition filed by former Kerala chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan who demanded a CBI probe, alleging that the state police were not effectively probing the matter.
Appearing for Achuthanandan, senior counsel Shekhar Naphde told the court that a probe by the special investigating team has revealed the names of 22 people who are allegedly involved in the scandal. He said the names were not made public as it would be very embarrassing.
Achuthanandan has challenged Aug 30 order of the Kerala High Court which, while declining investigation by the CBI, had said the probe report is with the magistrate and it would not interfere with it. However, the high court described the report as "very serious".
The alleged racket in the early 1990s involved an ice-cream parlour in Kozhikode as its base and was dubbed by the media as the "ice cream parlour sex case".
The apex court bench of Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Justice C. Naggapan issued notice on a petition filed by former Kerala chief minister V.S. Achuthanandan who demanded a CBI probe, alleging that the state police were not effectively probing the matter.
Appearing for Achuthanandan, senior counsel Shekhar Naphde told the court that a probe by the special investigating team has revealed the names of 22 people who are allegedly involved in the scandal. He said the names were not made public as it would be very embarrassing.
Achuthanandan has challenged Aug 30 order of the Kerala High Court which, while declining investigation by the CBI, had said the probe report is with the magistrate and it would not interfere with it. However, the high court described the report as "very serious".