Calcutta High Court Calls For State's Response On Plea Seeking FIR Against Former CP Vineet Goyal For Revealing RG Kar Victim's Name To Media

The Calcutta High Court on Monday called for a response from the State government on a plea seeking the resignation of former police commissioner Vineet Goyal for revealing the name of the RG Kar hospital rape-murder victim to the media.

A division bench presided over by Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam also sought responses from the former police commissioner, as well as the appropriate authority of the central government.

Earlier, the bench directed the petitioners to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on whether the High Court would be able to independently hear this aspect of the matter since the SC was hearing the case.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani submitted that the SC had clarified that the HC would be able to take up all other aspects of the matter, aside from the investigation, which the Supreme Court was hearing.

It was submitted that the offense committed by the former commissioner was criminal in nature, and thus the HC would be able to hear it independently.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the supplementary affidavits filed by the petitioners had been served on them in a very belated manner, and thus they would require time to file a response.

ASG Ashok Chakrabarti submitted that the Department of Personnel and Training would be the appropriate central government agency to implead in the present case.

Advocate General Kishore Datta submitted that the state would be taking instructions on the matter after perusing the materials filed by the petitioner.

However, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had passed orders earlier on protecting the victim's name and identity and name from being published on the internet. It was noted that a similar order was also passed by the Calcutta High Court, before the present writ petition had been heard.

Accordingly, the bench said: We have been told that a clarification was sought from the SC. As we note that the application is still pending, we have doubt in our mind whether we would be entitled to proceed with this matter independently, when the SC is seized of the matter. We say so because the SC has passed directions to remove the name and identity of the victim from the internet earlier. The question would be whether the allegation in the petition which was prior to the SC order would hold.

Resultantly, the Bench directed the respondents to file their responses by 13th November, with advance copies on the petitioners, and listed the matter on 14th November, 2024.

Case: ANAMIKA PANDEY VS VINEET KUMAR GOYAL AND ORS

Case No: WPA(P)/389/2024