NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday stayed a Madras High Court's direction to the Tamil Nadu Police to conduct a departmental enquiry over the leak of the FIR in the alleged sexual assault case of a student on the campus of the Anna University, Chennai, and also initiate departmental proceedings against the officials, accountable for the lapses.
Supreme Court Halts Inquiry Against Tamil Nadu Police Over FIR Leak in Anna University Case
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stayed the adverse comments made by the High Court against the police officers upon hearing senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra for the Tamil Nadu government.
The court issued notice on a plea by the Tamil Nadu government, which clarified that it was not challenging the High Court direction to constitute a special investigation team (SIT) of three women IPS officers or Rs 25 Lakh compensation to the victim girl.
SC Supports SIT Probe, Stays Adverse Remarks by Madras HC in Sexual Harassment FIR Leak
During the hearing, the bench asked Rohatgi if the state was aggrieved by the constitution of the SIT.
The counsel said they supported the victim but wanted certain observations in the order against the police officials should be stayed.
In the matter, the blocking of the FIR was not enabled due to the technical glitch which has also been acknowledged via email sent by NIC to the state Crime Records Bureau and thereby, led to the viewing of the FIR by few persons, the state claimed.
The counsel said that an FIR has been registered for the leakage of the contents of the FIR, and there are two FIRs now, one of the unfortunate incident, and the other regarding the leak of the FIR.
The counsel that NIC has been sensitised that this should not happen.
"We had blocked it on day one, but it appeared on day two. The high court disposed of the writ in one day without any opportunity," the state's counsel said.
Luthra said the defect and default occurred in the central system and the state is not at fault, and the contents of the FIRs should have been blocked by the central system. Luthra said the second FIR is against the unknown people who are responsible for the leak of the FIR and added, "All the URLs have been blocked and if something comes up, we will keep blocking it".
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, representing a lady lawyer, submitted that the police commissioner just softened the ground. "He comes and says there is going to be only one accused and nothing further needs to be done. He does not say who else is involved….he (the accused) is a history-sheeter. He keeps coming to the university," Srinivasan claimed.
The counsel claimed that there are others also involved, however, the commissioner said there is only one person involved. He alleged a cover-up as the Commissioner claimed the investigation was complete in the press conference.
Srinivasan claimed the offender is a member of the ruling party and he is protected.
"We wanted a CBI inquiry. The state says no CBI inquiry, we will constitute an SIT," the counsel said. At this juncture, the bench said they are not objecting to the SIT.
