'No One Should Blame Girl For Being With Male Friend': Madras HC Orally Remarks In Plea For CBI Probe Into Anna University Sexual Assault

While hearing a batch of pleas seeking a CBI probe into the recent sexual assault of a second-year engineering student at Anna University in Chennai, the Madras High Court on Friday (December 27) orally emphasized that no one should blame the victim for being with her male friend when the incident happened. 

"Just because this incident has happened, no one should blame the girl for sitting with her boyfriend. It is her private right. The university or any person cannot say that girls cannot go out at night, talk to boys, etc. It is their right. People cannot morally police the girl. That is why we stressed that we appreciate the girl for coming forward," the court orally remarked. 

During the hearing a division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayanan also orally criticized the State Government for leaking the FIR. The Court remarked that the State should have taken steps to make sure that the personal details of the victim including her name and mobile number not be accessed publicly. The court emphathised with the victim and remarked that the victim and her family would've been in a state of stress due to the leakage of personal information and the constant phone calls that the family was getting after the incident.

"The FIR was leaked from your hands. You should've filed the FIR in such a way that the information not be leaked. Now who is responsible for the victim and her family? Not just the accused but the state is also responsible...There should be a system to make sure that the details are not leaked. Even if the FIR is uploaded, the details should be masked," the court orally said.

The court also raised serious concerns about the security in the campus and questioned Anna University on its failure to ensure the proper functioning of CCTV cameras on the campus. The court said that the university, which was the guardian of the students had failed to ensure their safety.

"What are you (university) doing? You're the guardian of these students. Out of the 70 cameras in the campus, 56 were not working at the time of the incident. How are you ensuring the safety of the kids?" the court asked and directed the University to submit a report on the same. 

Noting that the commissioner, while addressing a press conference had said that there was only one accused in the case, the court wondered what law permitted the Commissioner to make such a statement while the investigation was underway. The court asked the Advocate General to find out what service laws or other rules permitted the Commissioner to make such statements or whether prior permission was obtained before conducting the press conference.

"If the matter is under investigation, how can the Commissioner say that he is the sole accused? The Investigating Officer is under the Commissioner. Now that the commissioner is going on saying there is only one accused, if the IO finds that there are more accused, he would be hesitant to bring it forward. How could the commissioner conduct the press meeting? What are the service rules? Was prior permission taken before conducting the press meeting?" the court asked.

The bench was hearing a batch of pleas seeking various directions in connection with the incident. One of the main prayers was to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation while an interim direction was also sought to form a Special Investigation Team led by a sitting judge of the Madras High Court to oversee the investigation. The case has been adjourned to Saturday (December 28) for further hearing.  

The petitioners argued that the law enforcing agencies have failed to take effective steps to ensure safety in the State as it had allowed the accused to roam free even after having 15 cases against him. The petitioners also argued that the cases against the accused were being shelved. Pointing out that the accused has held administrative positions in the ruling DMK party, the petitioner argued that the incident evoked pertinent questions regarding the impartiality and efficiency of the ongoing probe. 

The High Court has also taken suo motu cognizance of the issue but refrained from dealing with the suo motu public interest litigation today, since the bench was awaiting formal orders from the Chief Justice.  

Case Title: R Varalakshmi v The Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

Case No: WP 39893 of 2024