The High Court issued a contempt notice to the Indore Police Commissioner in a case related to alleged harassment. This action comes after accusations that the police ignored court orders aimed at protecting the complainant. The court expressed concern over the disregard for its directives and has demanded a response from the police commissioner.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a contempt notice to the Indore Police Commissioner for not submitting a report on an alleged incident where minor girl students were reportedly strip-searched by a teacher.
The order was given by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, who also instructed the police commissioner to be present at the next hearing on November 25.
The incident occurred on August 2, when a mobile phone rang in a classroom at a government-run girls’ higher secondary school. In response, the teacher allegedly took five girls to the toilet and strip-searched them to locate the device.
Following complaints from parents, the court, addressing a Public Interest Litigation by activist Chinmay Mishra, directed the police commissioner on August 30 to investigate the potential application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the teacher and file a report within a month.
The court stated,
“The said order has not been complied with. Let a show-cause notice be issued to Police Commissioner, Indore as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him for noncompliance,”
Adding that,
“An affidavit to this effect shall be filed within a week, and Police Commissioner, Indore is directed to remain personally present before this Court on the next date of hearing.”
The teacher is currently facing charges under sections 76 and 79 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for assault with intent to disrobe and intent to insult a woman’s modesty, along with section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act for cruelty to children.
A police official clarified that POCSO provisions were not added as the investigation found no “sexual intent” in the teacher’s actions.