The Madras High Court Friday slammed the Chennai Police for leaking identity details of the 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted inside the Anna University campus premises earlier this week..A Vacation Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan asked how the First Information Report (FIR) of the case was leaked by the police."And who is responsible for the victim's family and what they are going through," it asked.The Court said such lapse will dissuade others from approaching the police. "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," it observed.The Court said that while the Police can upload FIR on its official website, the identity details of the victim should have been redacted. "You can upload the FIR but you are supposed to redact identity details. You give us an answer. The damage caused to the victim and her family can't be taken back by you. Tell us by tomorrow morning," it added while adjourning the hearing to Saturday..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions related to the investigation of the case.One of the petitioners is advocate Jayaprakash who is also a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).The Court in the morning had directed Tamil Nadu government to submit a status report on the case by 2.15 pm this afternoon..On December 25, the Chennai Police arrested a roadside biryani vendor, Gnanasekaran, for allegedly sexually assaulting the student of Anna University on the campus.As per the complaint, the incident occurred on December 23 this year. The complainant later approached the police and also filed a complaint with the University’s Internal Complaints Committee for prevention of sexual harassment. .During the hearing of petitions this afternoon, the Court questioned how the Commissioner of Police had claimed that only one accused was involved in the case when the investigation is still ongoing."How did the Commissioner hold a press conference and make a causal statement that only one accused is involved? Where are your service rules and what do they say about holding press conferences?," it asked.It also asked about the allegations of custodial torture against the accused. "Why did the accused have bandages on his hands and legs?," it said.The State in response said the accused was trying to flee.The Bench also pointed to lapses by the Anna University. "And what about the lapses on part of the Anna University? Something happened inside your campus..even the police required your permission to enter your campus but a miscreant was allowed to roam freely in your campus.".Advocate Jayaprakash submitted that the accused, despite having a criminal record, was not monitored by the police."And then the police reveal the victim's details. Now everyone knows her phone number, her home. She and the parents are having to face so much," he told the Court.He thus sought an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a judge. However, the Court said,"Judges are not experts at investigation.".Advocate GS Mani, representing another petitioner, submitted that the accused had been beaten up by police during the custody."Was it done to silence the accused and protect someone else?," he asked.Mani also submitted that around 20 cases stand registered against the accused with convictions in 16 of them. "The police also said there are 70 CCTV cameras in the Anna University but shockingly, 56 were not working," he submitted..In response, Advocate General (AG) PS Raman objected to the submission that the accused was linked to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)."The 20 cases against the accused were registered between 2010 and 2018 when the AIADMK was in power," Raman submitted. He contended that the accused was arrested within 24 hours of the crime. "But instead of appreciating us they are asking for CBI probe in just three days," he added.However, the Court took an exception to the statement."Complementing and appreciating for what? Constitutionally, the State is duty bound for preventing crimes. A crime happens and the police arrest someone and we are expected to appreciate it?" it said..During the hearing, the Court also observed that a major reason for such crimes was the drug menace in the society. "You (State) should do something about it too. Let us be proactive instead of defending such incidents," it added.The Court also said the incident should not lead to people making statements about women."No one should now start making absurd statements on women's freedom and girls talking or moving around with boys now," it observed. The State will never say something like that, the AG said in response.
The Madras High Court Friday slammed the Chennai Police for leaking identity details of the 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted inside the Anna University campus premises earlier this week..A Vacation Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan asked how the First Information Report (FIR) of the case was leaked by the police."And who is responsible for the victim's family and what they are going through," it asked.The Court said such lapse will dissuade others from approaching the police. "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," it observed.The Court said that while the Police can upload FIR on its official website, the identity details of the victim should have been redacted. "You can upload the FIR but you are supposed to redact identity details. You give us an answer. The damage caused to the victim and her family can't be taken back by you. Tell us by tomorrow morning," it added while adjourning the hearing to Saturday..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking directions related to the investigation of the case.One of the petitioners is advocate Jayaprakash who is also a member of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK).The Court in the morning had directed Tamil Nadu government to submit a status report on the case by 2.15 pm this afternoon..On December 25, the Chennai Police arrested a roadside biryani vendor, Gnanasekaran, for allegedly sexually assaulting the student of Anna University on the campus.As per the complaint, the incident occurred on December 23 this year. The complainant later approached the police and also filed a complaint with the University’s Internal Complaints Committee for prevention of sexual harassment. .During the hearing of petitions this afternoon, the Court questioned how the Commissioner of Police had claimed that only one accused was involved in the case when the investigation is still ongoing."How did the Commissioner hold a press conference and make a causal statement that only one accused is involved? Where are your service rules and what do they say about holding press conferences?," it asked.It also asked about the allegations of custodial torture against the accused. "Why did the accused have bandages on his hands and legs?," it said.The State in response said the accused was trying to flee.The Bench also pointed to lapses by the Anna University. "And what about the lapses on part of the Anna University? Something happened inside your campus..even the police required your permission to enter your campus but a miscreant was allowed to roam freely in your campus.".Advocate Jayaprakash submitted that the accused, despite having a criminal record, was not monitored by the police."And then the police reveal the victim's details. Now everyone knows her phone number, her home. She and the parents are having to face so much," he told the Court.He thus sought an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a judge. However, the Court said,"Judges are not experts at investigation.".Advocate GS Mani, representing another petitioner, submitted that the accused had been beaten up by police during the custody."Was it done to silence the accused and protect someone else?," he asked.Mani also submitted that around 20 cases stand registered against the accused with convictions in 16 of them. "The police also said there are 70 CCTV cameras in the Anna University but shockingly, 56 were not working," he submitted..In response, Advocate General (AG) PS Raman objected to the submission that the accused was linked to Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)."The 20 cases against the accused were registered between 2010 and 2018 when the AIADMK was in power," Raman submitted. He contended that the accused was arrested within 24 hours of the crime. "But instead of appreciating us they are asking for CBI probe in just three days," he added.However, the Court took an exception to the statement."Complementing and appreciating for what? Constitutionally, the State is duty bound for preventing crimes. A crime happens and the police arrest someone and we are expected to appreciate it?" it said..During the hearing, the Court also observed that a major reason for such crimes was the drug menace in the society. "You (State) should do something about it too. Let us be proactive instead of defending such incidents," it added.The Court also said the incident should not lead to people making statements about women."No one should now start making absurd statements on women's freedom and girls talking or moving around with boys now," it observed. The State will never say something like that, the AG said in response.
