The Madras High Court criticized Chennai Police for leaking details of a 19-year-old sexual assault victim from Anna University, emphasizing the harm caused to her family. The Court questioned police efficiency, handling of the case, and systemic issues like non-functional CCTV cameras, urging for accountability and reforms to improve reporting safety and address societal drug abuse.
Chennai: The Madras High Court, on Friday, strongly criticized the Chennai Police for leaking the identity details of a 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted on the Anna University campus. A Vacation Bench consisting of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan raised serious questions about the handling of the case by the authorities.
“And who is responsible for the victim’s family and what they are going through,”
the Court asked, emphasizing the emotional and social damage caused by such a lapse.
The Court stated that leaking the First Information Report (FIR) without redacting the victim’s identity discourages others from coming forward to report crimes.
“The parents of all students will be afraid now to approach the police. We are concerned about that too and we want to request all students to come forward and tell us if they know anything more,”
the Bench remarked.
Criticizing the Chennai Police, the Court said,
“You can upload the FIR, but you are supposed to redact identity details. The damage caused to the victim and her family can’t be taken back by you. Tell us by tomorrow morning.”
The assault reportedly occurred on December 23, and the police arrested a roadside biryani vendor, Gnanasekaran, on December 25. The complainant filed reports with both the police and Anna University’s Internal Complaints Committee. However, the Court questioned the claim by the Commissioner of Police that only one accused was involved, stating,
“How did the Commissioner hold a press conference and make a casual statement that only one accused is involved? Where are your service rules and what do they say about holding press conferences?”
The Bench also raised concerns over allegations of custodial torture of the accused, asking,
“Why did the accused have bandages on his hands and legs?”
Highlighting the University’s role, the Court observed,
“What about the lapses on part of Anna University? Something happened inside your campus… even the police required your permission to enter, but a miscreant was allowed to roam freely in your campus.”
The Bench pointed to the broader societal issue of drug abuse, calling it a major factor in crimes like this.
“You (State) should do something about it too. Let us be proactive instead of defending such incidents,”
the Court added.
Advocate General PS Raman defended the police’s actions, stating the accused was arrested within 24 hours of the incident. However, the Court countered,
“Complementing and appreciating for what? Constitutionally, the State is duty bound for preventing crimes.”
The hearing also addressed systemic issues, like non-functional CCTV cameras on campus, as raised by the petitioners.
The Court warned against making regressive statements about women’s behavior or freedom in the aftermath of such incidents, stating,
“No one should now start making absurd statements on women’s freedom and girls talking or moving around with boys.”
The case highlights the need for systemic reforms, better handling of sexual assault cases, and greater accountability for both police and institutions.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
