CHENNAI: Outrage over an Anna University engineering student’s alleged rape on campus echoed in Madras high court Friday as a division bench initiated suo motu proceedings and took the DMK govt to task for seeking credit for a suspect’s arrest “when the state is supposed to prevent the crime”.
“Advocate general P S Raman is saying police are investigating the case. If the matter is under investigation, how can the commissioner of police say there is a lone accused?” the division bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and V Lakshminarayanan said.
The court initiated proceedings based on a letter from advocate R Varalakshmi.
“How would an investigating officer, who reports to the commissioner, take a different stand in case the investigation reveals involvement of more people,” the bench said. “How could the commissioner conduct a press meet? Was prior permission taken from his higher-ups for it?”
Advocate general Raman’s remark that the state should be appreciated for its prompt response to the alleged rape and the arrest of suspect Gnanasekaran within a day of the complaint being filed also invited a rebuke.
“How can you say it must be appreciated because an accused has been arrested?” Justice Subramaniam said. The court declined to pass an interim order without hearing the state and obtaining the Chief Justice’s approval.
Advocate Varalakshmi’s letter to the court states, “It was reported that the accused was a history-sheeter with over 15 cases pending against him, including a similar sexual assault case filed a few years back, raising strong and serious concerns regarding campus security and the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies in protecting students.”
She alleged that the arrested suspect, who has multiple cases of theft, robbery and other crimes against his name, had links with DMK. Varalakshmi said she doubted the impartiality and efficiency of the police probe. “What is even more intolerable is the fact that police officials made the FIR public and revealed the identity of the survivor along with her residential address.”
Terming these “serious lapses”, the advocate sought judicial intervention to ensure an impartial and efficient investigation to solve the case.