The Supreme Court of India on Monday, 27 January 2025, stayed portions of a Madras High Court order that held the Chennai Police Commissioner and other officials responsible for leaking the First Information Report (FIR) and revealing the identity of the survivor in the Anna University sexual assault case.
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the interim stay on parts of the 28 December 2024, High Court ruling. These included observations that the Police Commissioner had disclosed crucial details about the crime scene and that the language used in the FIR amounted to victim-blaming. The assault occurred on the university campus on 24 December 2024.
The High Court had previously criticised the Police Commissioner for revealing details of the case during a press conference held two days after the incident without prior government approval. The court also directed the State government and the Home Secretary to conduct a departmental inquiry into the FIR leak and initiate disciplinary action against officials for alleged negligence and dereliction of duty.
The Tamil Nadu government filed an appeal in the Supreme Court earlier in January 2025 against the Madras High Court’s directive to take legal action against the Police Commissioner. The Tamil Nadu government, in its appeal, claimed that the leakage of the FIR was due to an administrative lapse at the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and not the fault of the Tamil Nadu police. On this basis, the government is challenging the Madras High Court’s directive to take action against the Chennai Police Commissioner.
Appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, along with advocates D. Kumanan and Sabarish Subramanian, argued that the FIR and victim details were leaked due to a technical issue in the Centre-managed Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS).
Mr. Rohatgi attributed the leak to the system’s migration from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, stating, “This has nothing to do with us. Yet, the judge hauls up the Police Commissioner and the constable who drafted the FIR.”
He defended the Police Commissioner’s press conference, saying it was intended to “soften the situation” as public tensions were running high.
In response to the court’s query on whether the survivor’s details were still circulating on social media, Rohatgi and Luthra assured that all such content had been blocked. They added that a second FIR had been filed by the cybercrime wing to track down those responsible for circulating the information online.
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing the original petitioner R. Varalakshmi, countered the State’s defence, stating, “Everything was blocked after the victim was named and shamed.” He further alleged political interference, stating that “The alleged offender is a member of the ruling party. He is a history-sheeter. They are not investigating who else is involved.”
The court took note of these submissions and issued notices in the petition while staying the High Court’s conclusions until further notice.
(With inputs from The Hindu)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.