The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the CBI to further investigate the alleged attempt by Kerala police and officials to frame then Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) scientist S. Nambi Narayanan in an espionage case in 1994.

It asked the CBI to conduct the probe on the basis of a confidential report prepared by a committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge, Justice D.K. Jain, and submit a report within three months.

The bench of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari passed the directive after examining the sealed-cover Jain report, which has found certain “acts of omission and commission” by some officials in the then Kerala administration.

“The committee has submitted a report saying it is a serious issue requiring further investigation,” Justice Khanwilkar said.

The bench said a copy of the report would be given to the acting CBI director but the report would not be made public, and not even Narayanan would be entitled to see it.

Narayanan, now aged 79, had been arrested in 1994 and acquitted of all charges in 1998. On September 14, 2018, the apex court had awarded Rs 50 lakh in compensation to him and signalled that “malicious prosecution” would not be tolerated.

The apex court had at the time formed the Justice Jain committee to determine the appropriate disciplinary action against the accused investigating officers.

Among those accused of framing Narayanan were S. Vijayan, then an inspector with the Special Branch, Thiruvananthapuram; K.K. Joshwa, then deputy superintendent, CB-CID, Thiruvananthapuram; and S. Siby Mathews, then DIG (crime) of the special investigation team that probed the espionage case.

Justice Jain’s report came up before the bench on Thursday.

While awarding Rs 50 lakh in compensation to Narayanan, the top court had clarified that this would be independent of the Rs 1 crore defamation suit he had moved in a Kerala civil court, which is still pending.

During Thursday’s hearing, advocate Amit Sharma, appearing for Siby Mathews, had complained that the Justice Jain committee had not examined his client.

However, Justice Khanwilkar underlined that the committee was not supposed to adjudicate but only to inquire.

Its purpose was only to help the court decide whether a further probe was needed, he added.

Sharma said that since certain adverse findings had been made against his client, it would not be proper to make the report public.

“My request is, let the report not be published in the media,” he said. The bench agreed.