On January 27, the Supreme Court intervened and stayed the Madras High Court's order directing the Tamil Nadu police to initiate a departmental inquiry into the leak of the First Information Report (FIR) in the sexual assault case involving a second-year engineering student at Anna University in Chennai. The case had drawn significant attention after the FIR details were allegedly made public, raising concerns about the breach of confidentiality and its potential impact on the ongoing investigation. By staying the High Court's direction, the Supreme Court has temporarily halted the inquiry into the leak, leaving the matter unresolved for the time being. This development underscores the sensitivity surrounding the case and the legal processes involved.
A bench consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma issued an interim order on January 27, staying the adverse comments made by the Madras High Court against the Tamil Nadu State Police regarding the leak of the FIR in the sexual assault case. This decision came in response to the State's petition, which sought the expunction of the remarks made by the High Court. The Supreme Court's order also included the issuance of notice to the respondents, marking the beginning of legal proceedings on the matter.
Earlier, on December 28, 2024, the High Court, while directing the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) composed of women IPS officers to investigate the case, had noted significant lapses on the part of both the police and the University. The High Court's observations indicated that these shortcomings warranted a more focused and sensitive investigation into the matter, prompting the decision to establish the SIT. The High Court’s remarks, particularly regarding the police’s handling of the situation, led to the State’s petition challenging the adverse comments, which the Supreme Court has now stayed.
The High Court also observed that the leak of the First Information Report (FIR), which contained the victim's personal details, was a matter of grave concern and required serious investigation. The Court described the FIR leak as a significant failure on the part of the police, which not only compromised the integrity of the investigation but also caused additional trauma to the victim and her family. In light of this, the High Court directed the State to provide interim compensation of Rs. 25 lakh to the victim, with the possibility of recovering the amount from those responsible for the breach of duty and the unauthorized leak of the FIR.
At the Supreme Court, a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma stated that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) would continue its investigation. However, they stayed the operation of paragraphs 20, 21, 23, and 29(9) of the High Court's order, which had held the police officers responsible for the lapses in the case.
At the outset, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, representing the State of Tamil Nadu, clarified that the lapses in the FIR leak could not be attributed to the police commissioner. They explained that although the FIR uploaded on the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) had its personal details blocked, a technical glitch occurred during the system's migration from older criminal codes to newer ones, which led to the unintended leak of personal information. Rohatgi further pointed out that the State had contacted CCTNS to block the personal details of the FIR and had filed an FIR against unidentified individuals responsible for the leak. Luthra added that all links through which the FIR could be downloaded had been blocked and would remain inaccessible.
It is important to note that the State made it clear that it was not opposing the constitution of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). In response, Justice Nagarathna acknowledged that, regardless of the reasons behind the leak, the victim had suffered "secondary trauma." Despite this, the Court stayed the operation of certain paragraphs in the High Court's order.
info@adhwaitha.com
