New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a direction passed by the Madras High Court to the Tamil Nadu Police to conduct a departmental enquiry regarding the leak of the FIR in the sexual assault case of a student on the campus of the Anna University, Chennai, and also initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the officials, accountable for lapses.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Sidharth Luthra represented the Tamil Nadu government before the bench. The apex court stayed the adverse comments made by the high court against the police in connection with the FIR leak.
During the hearing, Rohatgi vehemently opposed the observations made by the high court in the order against the police officials. The bench asked Rohatgi,is the state aggrieved by the constitution of the SIT? Rohatgi said, "No, I want to support the victim," and pressed that certain observations in the order against the police officials should be stayed.
"I am not aggrieved with the formation of SIT. I am not aggrieved with the protection…," Rohatgi contended. The bench was informed that today nobody could download the FIR. "On enquiry with the National Information Centre (NIC), it was found that 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," said the state's petition in the apex court, filed through advocate D. Kumanan.
Rohatgi informed the bench 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 in the matter. "Whether it is doing rounds the details of the lady? What steps have been taken…," asked Justice Nagarathna.
It was contended before the bench that NIC has been sensitised that this should not happen, and today the contents of the FIR are blocked. "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 (to the state)…," argued the state's counsel.
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," said Srinivasan, and indicated that he may be doing it to the other girls'.
Srinivasan insisted that there are others also involved, however, the commissioner said there is only one person involved, and added, "there is a cover-up". Srinivasan said, "he (commissioner) says the investigation was complete. He does a press conference".
The state government counsel said, "I go to the university, the young people were up in arms. I had to say that this man is a history-sheeter….," and asked why the advocate moved before the court. Srinivasan said the offender is a member of the ruling party and he is protected and informed the bench that the accused is in jail now.
He added, "We wanted a CBI inquiry. The state says no CBI inquiry, we will constitute an SIT….". At this juncture, Justice Nagarathna said they are not objecting to the SIT. After hearing submissions, the top court issued notice to the respondents on the petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government.
The top court put on hold a direction issued by the high court: Paragraph 29(9) particularly states: "(9) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to conduct a departmental inquiry regarding leaking of FIR and initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the officials, who all are responsible and accountable for lapses, negligence and dereliction of duty under relevant service rules". The top court also stayed other observations by the high court against the police in the three paragraphs of its order.
The Tamil Nadu government approached the top court in the issue pertaining to the sexual assault of a student of Anna University and the Madras High Court order related to it.
The state government made it clear before the apex court that it is not challenging the order of 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. The state sought expunction of certain remarks made by the high court against the police regarding a press conference and "several lapses made by the police officials".
"The Hon'ble High Court erroneously held that there are several lapses on the part of the Police Officials and the press conference called for by the Commissioner of Police within two days after the incident and disclosing certain important facts in the public domain is highly unwarranted. The Hon'ble High Court has failed to consider that the details of the victim and the FIR was leaked from the citizen portal due to some technical glitch which is also acknowledged by an Email sent by the National Informatics Centre," said the state’s appeal.
