A Vacation Bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan expressed concern over the leak of the First Information Report (FIR) and questioned the police’s role in protecting the victim and her family.
Madras: The Madras High Court on Friday (27th Dec) criticized the Chennai Police for revealing the identity of a 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted on the Anna University campus earlier this week.
A Vacation Bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan expressed concern over the leak of the First Information Report (FIR) and questioned the police’s role in protecting the victim and her family.
“Who is accountable for what the victim’s family is enduring? Such lapses will discourage others from seeking police assistance,” the Court observed.
It emphasized that while FIRs can be uploaded online, identity details of victims must be redacted.
“The damage caused to the victim and her family is irreversible. Provide an explanation by tomorrow morning,” the Bench directed, adjourning the matter to Saturday.
The Court was hearing petitions seeking directions regarding the investigation, one of which was filed by advocate Jayaprakash, a member of the AIADMK. Earlier in the day, the Court had instructed the Tamil Nadu government to submit a status report by the afternoon.
The case involves the arrest of Gnanasekaran, a roadside biryani vendor, on December 25 for allegedly assaulting the Anna University student on December 23. The victim subsequently filed a complaint with the police and the University’s Internal Complaints Committee.
READ ALSO: Samsung Workers’ Protest|| “Habeas Corpus Petition Dismissed”: Madras HC
During the hearing, the Bench questioned the Police Commissioner’s premature statement that only one individual was involved, despite the investigation being ongoing.
“What do the service rules say about holding press conferences?” the Court asked. It also raised concerns about allegations of custodial torture against the accused, pointing out visible injuries.
The State claimed the injuries occurred during an escape attempt, while the Court highlighted security lapses at Anna University, noting that the accused roamed freely on campus.
Advocate Jayaprakash criticized the police for failing to monitor the accused, who has a criminal record, and for exposing the victim’s personal details, causing distress to her family. He sought an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT), but the Court remarked, “Judges are not experts in investigations.”
Advocate GS Mani, representing another petitioner, alleged custodial assault on the accused, suggesting it might be an attempt to shield others. He also revealed that 56 out of 70 CCTV cameras at Anna University were non-functional.
READ ALSO: ‘Terminate 30-Week Pregnancy’: HC Permits 11-Year-Old Sexual Assault Survivor
Responding to allegations linking the accused to the DMK, Advocate General PS Raman countered that the criminal cases against the accused were registered when the AIADMK was in power.
He defended the police for arresting the accused within 24 hours but faced criticism from the Court, which stated, “Preventing crimes is the State’s constitutional duty. Are we expected to appreciate basic policing?”
The Court further urged proactive measures against societal issues like drug abuse and warned against regressive comments on women’s freedom in response to the incident.
“No one should now make absurd statements about women’s behavior or interactions,” it added. The Advocate General assured the Court that the State would not endorse such views.
