The Madras High Court recently observed that the police should go after persons who are accused of disclosing sensitive information in sexual assault cases, instead of registering cases against journalists and YouTubers who broadcast such information [Suo Motu v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Another].
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam made the observation while recently directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations that personnel from an all-woman police station in Chennai violated the rights of a minor sexual assault victim and assaulted her parents.
Criminal cases were lodged against a YouTuber and a journalist for allegedly broadcasting the conversation between the police inspector in question and the victim.
The Court lamented the practice of registering cases only against journalists and YouTubers, stating such practice threatened the freedom of the pres.
Whenever such nature of publications are made, police are expected to find out the real accused, who provided such videographs and information to the Journalist instead of registering criminal cases only against the Journalist.Madras High Court
The parents of the victim had claimed that an inspector of the Anna Nagar All Women Police Station in Chennai had questioned the minor sexual assault victim in the absence of her parents. The parents also told the Court that when they questioned the police’s conduct, the inspector allegedly assaulted them and snatched away their phones.
A staff nurse at the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital revealed that the mother of the minor victim had been absent at the time of her examination by the inspector in the Hospital's common corridor.
Further, the Court found that a video of the statements made by the minor victim recorded in the corridor of the Hospital was aired on social media.
The petitioners alleged that the police officials committed several illegalities and irregularities in registering the criminal case and during the examination of the minor victim. It was alleged that the police attempted to protect the accused because he had some political connection.
As regards the broadcasting of the conversation between the inspector and the minor victim, the prosecution stated that separate actions have been initiated and criminal cases are registered against a YouTuber and a journalist.
The Court noted that the complaint and the accident register itself revealed the name of the accused on August 30, 2024. It said that despite the entire police investigation being broadcasted on social media and published in newspapers by September 7, the police officials did not arrest the accused until September 12.
"There was a prolonged delay in arresting the accused person, despite the fact that the accused is residing next door to the victim girl," it added.
It concluded that the procedures followed by the police in registering the case and conducting the investigation are in violation of the procedure under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
After noting that the victim's parents absolutely lost their confidence in the police, the Court found enough reasons to transfer the case to the CBI.
Advocate R Sampath Kumar appeared for the petitioner.
State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah and Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak represented the State Police.
[Read Order]