It is a no-brainer that while taking the most right step in the right direction, the Madras High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled R. Varalakshmi vs The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors in W.P.Nos.39893 & 39895 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.43221 of 2024 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:MHC:4229 that was pronounced as recently as on 28.12.2024 has taken very serious note of the "deplorable language" that has been used in the FIR with the tone of "victim blaming" and accordingly directed the Tamil Nadu State Government to pay an interim compensation of Rs 25 lakhs to the victim for the lapses by the police department in paving way for leaking FIR and for the huge trauma that had been undergone by the victim and her family members. It must be disclosed here that the recent sexual assault perpetrated on a 19-year-old student at Anna University has triggered huge public outcry from women and student bodies. What also must be certainly revealed here is that the unpalatable incident that occurred on December 23 was perpetrated by a "habitual offender" with a record of similar crimes which only served to further accentuate the anger towards the police for releasing him so easily and on top of it blaming the victim in the FIR as was palpable from the language used in it.
It merits mentioning that following huge public uproar, the Madras High Court on December 28 directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three women IPS officers to investigate the incident. Apart from this, the Court ordered the State Government to compensate the survivor with Rs 25 lakhs and instructed Anna University to waive her fees to ensure her education continues uninterrupted. The National Commission for Women (NCW) which had started a probe suo motu accused the Tamil Nadu police of utter negligence and pointed out that the accused is a habitual offender with Tamil Nadu police failing to act on previous cases. It is most heartening to note that the High Court acknowledged that victim shaming was made possible by the FIR leak and insisted that no woman should be subjected to such treatment and that males should be taught to respect women instead of instructing them how to act.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Mr Justice SM Subramaniam for a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of himself and Hon'ble Mr Justice V Lakshminarayanan sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, "This Court is aware that the investigation into the criminal case is ongoing. But suddenly the FIR involved in the present case was leaked to the public domain, revealing the details of victim and the incident. Further, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai has also divulged the details of the investigation through a press conference, which has become the subject matter of debate. The investigation details ought not to have been disclosed in the public, while the investigation is ongoing, as this could hamper and obstruct the process. The leakage of FIR is a serious lapse in the investigation process and cannot be taken lightly. This gives high chances to deviate and destabilize the ongoing investigation. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere and entertain the present Public Interest Litigations to meet the ends of justice."
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 3 that, "On the evening of December 23, 2024 within the premises of the reputed Anna University Campus at Guindy in the heart of Chennai City and nearby Raj Bhavan, a second year Engineering Student of Anna University was allegedly sexually assaulted and raped by accused. The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kotturpuram, Chennai registered a case for the offences under Sections 63(a), 64(1), 75(i)(ii), 75(i)(iii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. One accused person namely Mr.Gnanasekaran was arrested, and the investigation is currently underway."
While continuing in the same vein and elaborating in detail, the Division Bench enunciates in para 4 that, "It is widely reported that the victim girl along with her friend were near an old building within the Anna University campus. The accused filmed the victim girl and her friend and threatened by stating that the footage will be sent to the Dean and her parents, if she failed to comply with his demands. The accused reportedly attacked the friend of the victim girl and proceeded to assault the victim girl. He threatened her with expulsion from the University by leaking the footage to the Dean or she could spend time with him and another man, who called him through phone. Under threat, the accused allegedly raped the victim girl and recorded a video of the act. Further, he took pictures of her college identity card and threatened her to oblige to his sexual demands in future. He is believed to have spoken to another person from his mobile phone. The girl stated in her complaint that the accused received a phone call from someone and he said to that person, he would leave the girl after threatening her. The student/victim girl informed the incident to the Internal Complaints Committee of the College/University, who directed her to file a police complaint. Accordingly, a Police complaint was filed with All Women Police Station, Kotturpuram, Chennai. And an FIR was registered for the commission of offence of rape and sexual assault."
Alarmingly, we see that the Division Bench points out in para 5 that, "The Police nabbed one accused namely Mr.Gnanasekaran and other suspects are still remain at large. It was reported that accused was a historysheeter and several criminal cases are pending against him, including similar sexual assault cases. The said accused person has been classified as a history-sheeter in criminal records of the Police. However, it is not made clear whether the local police station conducted any surveillance on him. It is reported that the accused has entered the Anna University Campus on multiple occasions. It is further reported that several such untoward incidents occurred inside Anna University campus during earlier occasions. Some of the incidents were known to the Professors, Students and Administrative staff within the Anna University Campus, but no complaint was registered."
Do note, the Division Bench notes in para 6 that, "Though the writ petitioner in her affidavit has stated that the accused Mr.Gnanasekaran is an office bearer of ruling DMK party, we are not inclined to consider those allegation, in view of the fact that the investigation is in preliminary stage. Political colour do not matter to a crime of this nature."
Do also note, the Division Bench then notes in para 7 that, "The FIR copy was made public and revealed the details of the identity of the victim girl along with the residential address, mobile number etc. The said act of any person or paving way for such commission of offence by the police is an offence under Section 72 of BNS, 2023. We have perused the copy of the FIR and found it is not properly worded and the contents in the FIR failed to protect the dignity of the victim girl. The sexual assault of the female student of Anna University in the heart of the city at Chennai has caused widespread outrage among students, faculties and the general public. Protests have been organized both within and outside the University, demanding immediate action and accountability."
Most remarkably, the Division Bench propounds in para 8 stating that, "The society has from time immemorial ordained women to conduct themselves as per a set of standards formulated which subjudicates women. Women have always been morally punished for the crimes against them. It is not a debate between who is more powerful; a Man or Woman. But what matters is that a life is a life. She is someone who has rights, freedoms and vision of her own. She should not be dictated by any society or institution to sacrifice her rights and freedoms to protect herself. It is the incumbent duty of State and society to protect women. This shall not be done by blaming her, shaming her and accusing her. She has all rights that is guaranteed to her by the Constitution. The Constitution does not distinguish between a man and a woman. The society should feel ashamed to shame its own woman. The perpetrators find it advantageous that victims are blamed."
More to the point, it is rightly quipped by the Bench in para 9 that, "It is high time that the society positions itself from the shoes of the woman. Do only men have wishes here? Why can't a woman wish to fall in love without societal judgements? Why can't a woman wish to walk by herself alone at night without fear? Why can't a woman wish to talk to her male friends and colleagues freely without being judged? Why can't a woman wish to dress up the way she wants without being shamed?"
Frankly speaking, the Bench rightly expounds and suggests in para 10 that, "It was never the fault of the woman, it has always been the society, which has dictated her life. She should rise above these societal stigma and judgements. Nobody in this free country has any right to dictate a woman as to how she should live her life. It is always Her Life. Her Body. Her Choice."
While striking the right chord, the Bench rightly underscores in para 11 that, "Men and society should work towards gaining trust of a woman and not shattering them by its action. Nobody has a right to touch a woman without her consent. That is the fundamental that must be taught to a Man. Instead blaming and shaming the woman affected is a degradation of integral standards in a progressive society."
Most forthrightly, the Bench rightly underlines in para 12 that, "These actions of victim shaming and blaming, kills the soul of a woman. No woman deserves this kind of treatment. Every man should be taught to respect a woman. Rather than teaching the woman as to how to behave, the society should learn its duty as to how to treat a woman with respect and dignity. Societal stigma is paving ways for crimes against women. The perpetrators find shelter in victim blaming and shaming."
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 13 that, "Right to privacy of the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution stands breached in the present case, due to FIR leak and hence, this Court is bound to consider for grant of compensation."
Most tellingly, the Bench laments in para 16 observing that, "It is unfortunate that, in the case on hand, the leaking of the FIR has itself paved way for victim shaming. The details of the victim including her name, contact number, address, the details of the incident has been leaked and circulated in the public domain. The FIR leak has not only breached her right to privacy but also attacked her right to dignity. The victim and her family is now made to go through more mental agony and trauma at the very incident, which is unacceptable and strongly condemnable. Even construed as a mistake or technical error, it is essential to understand that errors should not find any place in such sensitive cases, especially in cases involving crimes against women and children. The dictum in Nipun Saxena's case cited supra explicitly dealt with these issues."
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 17 that, "This major lapse of FIR leak will amplify fear and anxiety among victims of such heinous crimes. Victims will hesitate to come forward to report such crimes, if FIR with all details are leaked into the public domain. Further, the details of the victim being leaked can disrupt their social life and may also hamper the investigation process, as there is scope for victim harassment and intimidation. This will have a chilling effect and would embolden the offender to repeat the crime against women in the society. Moreover, it can sabotage the investigation. This ought to be viewed seriously and an investigation into this is of utmost importance. Confidentiality of the victim's detail is paramount, as investigation into crimes of this nature requires a victim centred approach."
No doubt, the Division Bench rightly holds in para 18 that, "This Court whole heartedly appreciates the courage exhibited by the brave survivor in coming forward to report the crime. Unless victims come forward to report crimes, the perpetrators will continue with committing such crimes."
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench notes in para 19 that, "This Court feels that the victim student has been wronged by not being adequately protected within the premises of the University campus. The victim ought to be compensated and hence, the Anna University has to ensure that the victim can continue her studies uninterruptedly and the University shall waive all charges, including tuition fees, hostel fees, etc., enabling her to complete her studies. The University shall provide counselling to the victim girl and encourage her to pursue her studies and complete the course. All necessary assistance are to be provided to the victim girl and to her family members."
Needless to say, the Division Bench points out in para 20 that, "At the initial stage of investigation, the Commissioner of Police, Chennai gave a press interview to the media. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai disclosed that one accused person is involved in the crime. Further, he revealed that FIR was not leaked by the Police and the leakage of FIR was due to technical glitches while registering and uploading the FIR in CCTNS. The Commissioner of Police further revealed that the accused's cellphone was in flight mode and the reference to another person in the FIR as 'SIR' was made to threaten the victim girl. The vital informations regarding the scene of crime disclosed by the Commissioner of Police through a press interview to the media, undoubtedly would cause prejudice to further investigation and hamper the investigation. The Investigating Officer, subordinate to the Commissioner of Police, may not be in a position to conduct further investigation in a free and fair manner. Thus change of investigation from the subordinate officials of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai become inevitable."
Most significantly, the Division Bench postulates in para 21 that, "The details of the FIR leaked in public showcases the deplorable language employed in the FIR paving way for victim blaming. Further, the Commissioner during press meet disclosed that the FIR will be drafted as exactly given by the complainant and hence, it was recorded as stated by the victim. But the language employed in the FIR is shocking, as it is, more a case of victim blaming. Even at the time of receiving complaint, counselling must have been provided by the officials concerned, so as to understand the clear picture about the incident in order to eliminate the trauma already caused to the victim girl by the accused person. The complaint and the FIR could have been drafted in such a way as to protect the dignity of the victim. It is the duty of the Police official receiving the complaint to assist the victim by employing a language, which does not infringe her right to dignity. Rather using words/phrases, insinuating the woman's character and berating her dignity is uncalled for. This could have been avoided by appropriate choice of words without violating her right to dignity."
Quite significantly, the Division Bench points out in para 23 that, "This Court is of the considered opinion that the press conference invited by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai without obtaining prior permission from the Government does not fall under any of the exclusion clauses under the Rules. Therefore, the Government has to examine and initiate all appropriate actions against the Commissioner of Police, Chennai, if required, under the relevant law. The press conference called for by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai within two days after the incident and disclosing certain important facts in the public domain is highly unwarranted. Therefore, the Government has to take a call and initiate all appropriate actions."
In a damning indictment of the Anna University Administration, the Division Bench rightly held and suggested in para 25 that, "The Anna University Administration has paved way for security breaches. The fact that a large number of Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) cameras within the campus were not in working condition, inadequate positioning of guards inside the campus are the matter of serious concern. Further, free access of third parties inside the University campus are also security lapse at large, where large number of female students are studying, including those residing in the girls' hostel situated inside the campus. In a reputed University, where a large number of students are pursuing education, the security inside the campus ought to be given top priority. The Internal Complaints Committee must be strengthened by appointing individuals with proven expertise and efficiency."
Quite rightly, the Division Bench held in para 26 that, "The Learned Advocate General would submit that the media also should provide information to the public with all responsibility. We have no other opinion on that. While publishing news, the relevant laws applicable are to be taken into consideration by all concerned. The victim's name, phone number and other details, under no circumstances be revealed in the public domain."
Gong ahead, the Division Bench observes in para 27 that, "This Court found several lapses both on the part of the Police Officials and the Anna University Administration and formed an opinion that the investigation must be handed over to the Special Investigation Team to be constituted by appointing Indian Police Service (IPS) Officers."
Notably, the Division Bench points out in para 28 that, "At this juncture, Mr.P.S.Raman, the learned Advocate General welcomed the decision of this Court spontaneously and has stated that the Government has given consent for appointment of Special Investigation Team. He suggested the following three officers to constitute the Special Investigation Team:
1. Dr.Bhukya Sneha Priya, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar District.
2. Ms.Ayman Jamal, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi.
3. Ms.S.Brinda, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem City."
Far most significantly, the Division Bench holds and directs in para 29 that, "In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:
(1) All Women Special Investigation Team comprising Dr.Bhukya Sneha Priya, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar District, Ms.Ayman Jamal, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Avadi and Ms.S.Brinda, I.P.S., Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem City is constituted to take up the investigation in right earnest, and conclude the same by filing charge sheet in two criminal cases registered in Crime No.3 of 2024 on the file of All Women Police Station, Kotturpuram, Chennai and Crime No.107 of 2024 on the file of Chennai East Zone Cyber Crime Police Station. All Women Special Investigation Team shall not allow any offenders to go scot free irrespective of their official position and how so high they are in the society.
(2) The Director General of Police is directed to provide all necessary assistances to the Special Investigation Team, enabling the team to conduct investigation, file charge sheet and proceed with the trial before the Competent Court.
(3) The Director General of Police is directed to provide interim protection to the victim girl and to her family members.
(4) The Government of Tamil Nadu is directed to pay an interim compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only] to the victim girl immediately, for the lapses by the Police Department in paving way for leaking FIR and for the trauma undergone by the victim girl and by her family members. The interim compensation granted by this Court will not be a bar for the victim to claim further compensation under relevant law. The compensation to be paid by the State Government can be recovered from all officials, persons, who all are responsible and accountable for leaking of FIR and for commission of lapses, dereliction of duty or negligence etc.
(5) The Anna University Administration is directed to allow the victim girl to continue her education and complete the course without collecting any fees including tuition fees, hostel fees, exam fees, mess charges, etc.
(6) The Anna University Administration is directed to provide counselling to the victim girl enabling her to pursue her education successfully and with merits.
(7) The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to ensure protection of FIRs in such nature of sensitive cases by adopting full proof procedures as contemplated under statutes and as per guidelines issued by the Constitutional Courts.
(8) The respondents are directed to remove all the details and references to the name of the victim from all social media forum and electronic media forthwith.
(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."
Further, the Division Bench directs in para 30 that, "The status report submitted by the learned Advocate General before this Court in a closed cover is directed to be handed over to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras, who in turn shall keep the same in a safe custody till the disposal of the two criminal cases registered in connection with the present writ petitions."
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 31 that, "With the above directions, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs."
