The petitions filed by lawyers Varalakshmi and Mohandas, requesting the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, were heard by a bench comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and V. Lakshmi Narayanan.
Madras: On Saturday, the Madras High Court directed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) be formed to investigate the case of sexual assault involving a 19-year-old Anna University student.
The Court also ordered the State to pay an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the victim, citing the serious mistake made by the police in revealing her personal details in the First Information Report (FIR) published on the police website. Additionally, the Court instructed the police to ensure the victim and her family receive proper protection.
A Bench consisting of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan highlighted several issues in the current investigation and ordered the formation of the SIT. The SIT will include three officers from the Indian Police Service (IPS). The Court strongly criticized the police for the victim-blaming tone found in the FIR, which was read during the hearing.
The petitions filed by lawyers Varalakshmi and Mohandas, requesting the transfer of the investigation to the CBI, were heard by a bench comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and V. Lakshmi Narayanan.
The Bench asked Advocate General (AG) PS Raman, “Have you read the FIR? It is an example of victim blaming.” The Court continued, “The deplorable language of the FIR paves the way for victim blaming. It is shocking.” It pointed out that the leaking of the FIR itself had caused further harm, leading to victim shaming. The Bench said, “It has led to more mental agony for her.”
The Court emphasized the responsibility of the State and society to protect women. It added, “This can’t be done by blaming or shaming her. It is misogynistic. The Constitution doesn’t differentiate between men and women and the society must feel ashamed to put down women.”
The Bench also asked, “Why can’t a woman walk alone freely, dress the way she wishes to, or speak to a man without being judged?” In its further remarks, the Court stated, “A woman must rise above societal stigma. It was never her fault, only the society’s that judged her.”
Concluding its observations, the Court said that the FIR violated the victim’s right to dignity and bodily autonomy. It referred to this violation under Article 21 of the Constitution and said, “In the present case, the victim’s right under Article 21 is breached and thus, the Court contemplates awarding a compensation to the victim.”
The Court also pointed out that the victim, being only 19 and a student, should have received more support from the police.
The Bench remarked, “The victim is a student…only 19 years old. Isn’t it the SHO’s duty to assist the victim in registering the FIR, in wording it? It reads like something that we would read in secret in the boys’ hostel.” As it read further from the FIR, the Court stressed the need for police sensitization, stating, “You were dressed in a way to invite the assault…this is what the FIR reads like.”
The case concerns the sexual assault of the student by a roadside biryani vendor named Gnanasekaran, who was arrested by the Chennai Police on December 25 for allegedly assaulting the student on the Anna University campus on December 23. The Court had earlier criticized the Tamil Nadu police for leaking the FIR and questioned the Commissioner of Police’s statement that only one person was involved in the crime.
AG Raman explained that the leak of the FIR was due to technical issues during the transition from the IPC to the BNS system, saying, “The unfortunate leak was due to the initial hiccups and lag faced since the system is transitioning from IPC to BNS.”
Raman also added, “14 people had accessed the entire unmasked FIR. We have tracked all of them.”
However, the Court dismissed this explanation, stating, “Your argument on the computer glitch due to the migration from IPC to BNS doesn’t hold water. BNS came into effect in July. In these five months, how many sensitive FIRs have been uploaded?”
The AG responded by saying the technical issue had been fixed and assured that the leak was not deliberate.
“But I want to say something from the bottom of my heart…it is not a case of a deliberate leak by the police. An effort was made by some to say the police leaked it. That’s not the case,”
he said.
Raman also stressed that while the police and the State were responsible for safeguarding the victim’s details, others, including citizens and the media, should also act responsibly.
He stated, “The citizens and the media too have such responsibility. Just because they came across her details, they needn’t have posted and shared it.”
The Court agreed, adding,
“That’s why you have the power to prosecute them.”
The State assured the Court that action would be taken, with the AG adding, “Yes, that is why all of them, including the media too will have to answer.”
The Court also addressed the Commissioner’s press conference, where he had claimed that only one accused was involved in the crime.
AG Raman explained, “It is because some people were taking advantage and making it seem as if some co-accused had been let off in the case…there is no government permission needed to hold such press conferences.” He further stated that the investigation was still in its early stages, adding, “We are not ruling out anything.”
The Court questioned whether the Commissioner’s statement could influence the judgment of the Investigating Officer (IO), asking, “If the Commissioner causally says only one person was involved, won’t it cloud the judgment of the IO?”
On the topic of crime rates in Chennai and Coimbatore, the AG referred to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, which showed that these cities were the safest.
The Court responded, saying, “That is because we are good people. The State and the police can’t take any credit.”
The AG further explained that cases like the sexual assault of the Anna University student were rare, but the Court emphasized that the media needed to be responsible.
The Court acknowledged, “Yes, they have to understand their responsibility but you can’t use any propaganda to curb the press freedom.”
The Court also rejected claims that the accused was connected to the ruling party, DMK.
Advocate GS Mani, representing the petitioners, had submitted, “The accused is related to the DMK. He has pictures with the deputy Chief Minister on social media.” The Court responded, saying, “We go to a wedding, someone takes a picture with us, does it mean they are our acquaintances? Let the investigation go on. Such questions and answers are irrelevant.” The Court advised against giving any political color to the case.
The Court also questioned Anna University on how the accused was able to enter the campus. Additional Advocate General J Ravindran clarified that the police were investigating this matter.
He also stated, “After this incident, a permanent committee has been constituted to implement safety and preventive measures for students on the campus.”
The Court was informed that the university’s management had been in touch with the victim, and she was receiving counseling.
The Bench emphasized, “She must not suffer anymore. She must continue her studies.” In its order, the Court instructed Anna University not to charge any fees from the victim in the future.
Yesterday’s Hearing
The petitioners’ lawyers argued that the release of the First Information Report (FIR) was illegal. They emphasized that the police Commissioner had admitted to the release, and action should be taken against the involved officers. The lawyers also pointed out that the Commissioner had stated the arrested person had 20 cases against him, urging an investigation into those responsible for him.
They called for the FIR’s issuance to be reviewed as a violation of laws protecting sexual assault victims and demanded the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a retired judge, to investigate the matter. The police Commissioner clarified that there was only one sexual assault case against the arrested individual. However, the petitioners argued that all pending cases should be investigated.
During the hearing, the judges questioned how the police Commissioner could label the arrested person a criminal before the investigation was complete and why the individual was injured while in police custody. The Tamil Nadu government’s Attorney General and Additional Attorney General explained that only the name of the arrested person appeared in the victim’s complaint.
The police further explained that the arrested person had tried to flee during interrogation, injuring himself in the process. The judges also inquired if government officials needed approval before meeting journalists under the code of conduct.
The court ordered the Tamil Nadu government and police to file a detailed report on the FIR’s release and identify those responsible. It also instructed Anna University to submit a report on the utilization of Nirbhaya funds and the number of complaints received by the university’s Vishakha Committee. The hearing was adjourned to the following day.
The judges commended the victim for her bravery in filing the complaint, asserting it was their duty to protect her. They noted that the alleged perpetrator had been on Anna University’s campus for ten years. The judges further emphasized that women have complete freedom, stating that love should be a woman’s choice.
Case Title: Case Title: R Varalakshmi vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others WP No. 39893 of 2024
