Madras High Court Slams TN Police For Leaking FIR Copy Containing Sensitive Details Of Anna University Sexual Assault Case

The Madras High Court on Friday strongly criticized the Tamil Nadu Police for disclosing the identity of a 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted on the Anna University campus earlier this week.

According to a report by Bar & Bench, the Vacation Bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan questioned how the police allowed the First Information Report (FIR) to be leaked and expressed concern over the impact on the victim’s family. The Court remarked, “Who will take responsibility for the suffering inflicted on the victim’s family?

The judges emphasized that such lapses could deter others from seeking police help in similar situations. “Parents of students will now hesitate to approach the authorities. This incident may discourage victims from coming forward,” the Court stated, urging students to share any additional information they may have about the case.

The Bench reprimanded the police for failing to redact identity details in the FIR and demanded an explanation by the following morning, stating that the damage to the victim’s family could not be undone. The hearing was adjourned to Saturday.

The case is being examined following multiple petitions, including one filed by advocate Jayaprakash, a member of the AIADMK, who sought a thorough investigation. Earlier in the day, the Court directed the Tamil Nadu government to submit a status report on the case by the afternoon.

On December 25, Chennai Police arrested Gnanasekaran, a biryani vendor, for allegedly assaulting the student on campus. The incident reportedly occurred on December 23, with the victim filing complaints with both the police and Anna University’s Internal Complaints Committee.

The Court questioned the Commissioner of Police’s premature declaration that only one individual was involved in the crime, despite an ongoing investigation. “How could the Commissioner hold a press conference and make such a statement? What do service rules say about publicizing ongoing investigations?” it asked.

The Bench also raised concerns about allegations of custodial torture, questioning why the accused was seen with injuries. The State explained that the injuries occurred during an attempted escape.

Pointing to potential lapses by Anna University, the Court criticized the institution for allowing such an incident to occur on its premises. It also noted the university’s reluctance to cooperate fully with the police investigation.

Jayaprakash argued that the accused, who had a history of criminal activity, was inadequately monitored by the police. He also condemned the police for leaking the victim’s personal information, exposing her and her family to further distress. He requested a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a judge, though the Court stated that judges are not equipped to lead investigations.

Another petitioner, advocate GS Mani, alleged that the accused had been subjected to police brutality, possibly to shield others involved in the case. He also highlighted the accused’s extensive criminal record, with 20 cases registered and 16 convictions. Mani further revealed that out of 70 CCTV cameras on the university campus, only 14 were functional.

In response, Advocate General PS Raman defended the State, dismissing claims of political connections to the accused and noting that the crimes were committed during the AIADMK’s tenure. He also argued that the accused was arrested within 24 hours, urging recognition of the police’s swift action. However, the Court rejected this, stating that crime prevention is the State’s constitutional duty, and arrests after a crime do not warrant praise.

The Court also highlighted the growing drug problem as a contributing factor to such crimes and urged the State to take preventive measures. Additionally, it cautioned against attributing the incident to women’s behavior or freedoms, affirming that such narratives should not emerge.

The hearing continues as the Court seeks further accountability and action from both the State and Anna University.

(With inputs from Bar & Bench)

Subscribe to our channels on TelegramWhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.