On Thursday(22nd August), Renowned Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat voiced serious concerns about the alleged withdrawal of security for women wrestlers set to testify in the sexual harassment case against former WFI president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. She highlighted the potential risks involved for these witnesses.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: On Thursday(22nd August), renowned Indian wrestler Vinesh Phogat expressed her deep concern over the alleged withdrawal of security provided to women wrestlers who are scheduled to testify in the ongoing sexual harassment case against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the former president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI).
The issue of security withdrawal has become a focal point of concern, especially as these wrestlers prepare to give crucial testimonies in a case that has garnered national attention. Vinesh Phogat, taking to social media, highlighted the issue, bringing it into the public eye and urging authorities to take swift action.
In response to the wrestlers’ concerns, they approached a Delhi court to express their fears regarding the sudden withdrawal of security. Acknowledging the seriousness of the situation, the court issued an interim order, mandating the immediate reinstatement of security for one of the complainants. The court’s directive stated that the security cover must remain in place “until her testimony is concluded and until the court issues further orders.”
The court also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to submit a comprehensive report detailing the reasons behind the security withdrawal. This report is expected to shed light on the decision-making process that led to the perceived lapse in protection. The court will review this report in the next hearing, adding another layer of scrutiny to the case.
Amidst the growing controversy, the Delhi Police swiftly responded to the allegations made by Vinesh Phogat and other concerned parties. Denying that the security cover had been withdrawn, the police clarified that the security personnel were temporarily called away for “firing and training practices,” which they described as a “routine practice.”
To further clarify the situation, the Delhi Police stated-
“The Police Support Officer (PSO) has either already returned for security arrangements or will arrive tonight.”
This statement was intended to reassure the public and the complainants that there had been no intentional withdrawal of security and that any delay was being actively investigated.
In response to the concerns raised by Vinesh Phogat, the Delhi Police also noted-
“There is no order to withdraw security. Any delay in the arrival of the security personnel is being investigated, and the wrestlers are being updated accordingly.”
The backdrop of this security controversy lies in a protracted battle for justice. Several women wrestlers had come forward with allegations of harassment against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, claims that the former BJP MP has vehemently denied. These allegations, however, sparked a major movement within the Indian wrestling community, leading top grapplers to stage protests demanding Singh’s arrest. These protests, which began in January of the previous year, continued for several months, highlighting the seriousness of the allegations and the determination of the wrestlers to seek justice.
The legal process began to take shape in April last year when the Delhi Police registered the first FIR against Brij Bhushan. The investigation culminated in June with the filing of a chargesheet in a Delhi court, marking a critical step in the legal proceedings.
In May of this year, the Delhi court announced that it had found “sufficient material” to frame charges against Brij Bhushan in five of the six cases brought against him. This marked a significant moment in the case, as the court proceeded to frame charges under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Brij Bhushan was charged under IPC Section 354, which pertains to “assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty,” and Section 354A, related to “sexual harassment.” Additionally, in two separate cases, charges were framed under Section 506, which deals with “criminal intimidation.” These charges underscore the gravity of the allegations and the potential consequences facing the accused.
