Although the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act is progressive step towards ensuring women’s safety, recent incident suggest that, even seven months after its introduction, awareness of the law has yet to reach the frontlines.
Published Aug 01, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 01, 2025 | 12:00 PM
Despite efforts from the government, including programmes like Putholi and various awareness initiatives, deaths in police custody continue.
Synopsis: Despite the ruling DMK’s efforts to curb the rise in crimes against women in Tamil Nadu and offer protections to survivors of sexual violence and gender-based abuse through a progressive amendment earlier this year, the ground reality has fallen far short of the law’s ideals. The police’s handling of two recent harassment cases involving different women suggests that legislation alone, without proper training and sensitisation of officers, will lead to no meaningful change on the ground.
In January, the Tamil Nadu government introduced a seemingly progressive piece of legislation aimed at curbing the rise in crimes against women, specifically targeting survivors of sexual violence and gender-based abuse in the state.
The Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2025, added several new provisions to the original Act enacted in 1998. Most notably, Section 7C mandates that survivors of sexual violence and gender-based abuse be provided protection from the accused for one year.
If the accused attempts to contact the survivor during this period, it is treated as a grave offence, punishable with up to three years in prison and a fine of ₹1 lakh.
Yet two recent instances of harassment faced by different women in the state suggest that, while the law’s intentions may be progressive, its implementation on the ground is far from perfect. The biggest obstacle: the attitudes and biases of the very people expected to enforce it: police.
Janani (name changed), a 25-year-old woman, works for an international firm based in Chennai. Having moved from her hometown for work, she now lives independently in an apartment with friends.
One night, after finishing work around 9 pm, she stepped out to buy dinner from a hotel just 100 metres from her home. On the way, an unidentified man on a two-wheeler sexually harassed her, using obscene language and threatening her, while asking her to get on his vehicle.
Janani immediately took out her phone and began recording the incident. Seeing this, the man fled the scene. Acting quickly, she shared the video with her friends and posted it on Twitter, tagging the Chennai police and filing a complaint.
The police soon contacted her through her social media handle and obtained her phone number. By the next morning, the R7 KK Nagar Police Station had initiated an investigation. By evening, they had identified and arrested the accused.
Within two days, officials processed a legal protection order for Janani under the newly enacted Section 7C, granting her one year of protection from the accused. Throughout the process, Janani said the police treated her with dignity and she did not face any discomfort or humiliation.
But for Vijayalakshmi, 28, who works at a private media outlet in Chennai, a similar experience unfolded very differently.
After work one evening, she visited a popular tea shop in Teynampet with friends. As she was leaving, she asked a man to move his vehicle, which was blocking hers. In response, he verbally abused and threatened her.
She tried calling the police emergency number, 100, several times, but got no response. Distressed, she left the scene. Like Janani, she posted about the incident on Twitter the next night.
However, it took two full days for the police to contact her. She was then repeatedly summoned to the police station, made to wait for hours, and subjected to uncomfortable questioning.
Vijayalakshmi alleged that Assistant Inspector Manickavasagam at the Teynampet Police Station kept asking, “Why were you in Teynampet if your office is in Royapettah?”
“It’s not that I minded answering questions,” said Vijayalakshmi. “But being asked the same thing over and over in a way that made me feel uneasy. That was the issue.”
What disturbed her most was a phone call she received from the same officer after she had returned home. He asked, “What is your caste?” When she hesitated and asked why that was relevant, he simply responded, “Just tell me, ma’am,” without offering any explanation.
Child and women’s rights activist and lawyer BS Ajeetha believes that, at best, the officer’s insistence on knowing Vijayalakshmi’s caste may have been an attempt to assess whether provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act might apply.
“But even then, the way he kept pressing without explanation is highly questionable,” she told South First.
Even after Vijayalakshmi disclosed her broad caste category, the officer continued to press her for her specific sub-caste – something that caused her considerable distress.
Meanwhile, in Janani’s case, just four days after the incident, she appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and was granted legal protection under Section 7C of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act, 2025.
But in Vijayalakshmi’s case, despite the accused, S Sasikumar, being involved in at least seven previous cases, no such protective measures were initiated by the Teynampet police. After he was remanded, Vijayalakshmi received no updates on the case, nor any legal assistance or guidance on next steps.
This disparity is particularly troubling in a context where many women hesitate to approach police stations in the first place. Even when laws are progressive, systemic lapses in implementation can end up re-traumatising survivors.
According to Ajeetha, Section 7C is a welcome and important legal provision. “Granting one year of protection is crucial,” she said. “And even if the woman faces new forms of harassment after the protection period, a fresh case can be filed citing the previous order.”
The two police stations involved responded in markedly different ways. At the KK Nagar Police Station, officers reportedly instructed the survivor to ensure that her statement was recorded exactly as the incident happened, without altering a single word. With her consent, the complaint was documented accordingly, and the case was fast-tracked under the relevant legal provisions.
In contrast, the First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Teynampet police in Vijayalakshmi’s case included only partial details. It did not fully document how the accused had threatened her, nor did it mention the others who had verbally harassed her at the scene.
Although Vijayalakshmi had shared her contact number with the Chennai police’s social media team just five hours after her tweet on the 18th, the FIR falsely recorded that she filed the complaint only on the 23rd. In reality, she had already visited the police station on the 22nd.
Moreover, on the 23rd, she was made to appear in person before the accused to identify him, yet the FIR did not include the name or any details of the accused. He was merely referred to as an “unknown person.”
“This FIR seems deliberately watered down,” said advocate Ajeetha. “The accused had a known criminal history. Yet the police treated the matter casually, which could increase the risk to the survivor.”
Ajeetha’s concerns were validated when the accused was granted bail within six days. The bail order cited the “nature of the offence” and the fact that the accused had already spent six days in custody.
Viewed in this context, it appears the FIR was intentionally drafted in a diluted manner to facilitate the accused’s bail.
When the two women’s experiences did align, it was no better. The police asked the survivors to stand before the accused and identify them. In Vijayalakshmi’s case, the accused reportedly had a criminal record and was already facing an attempted murder charge, according to officers at the station.
Despite this, she was made to appear before him and asked to confirm his identity.
“There are lawful procedures like identification parades or verifying with photos,” said Ajeetha. “Forcing survivors to face their alleged attackers directly, especially when safer alternatives exist, is deeply problematic and retraumatising.”
When Janani was taken to the Revenue Divisional Officer to be granted protection under Section 7C, the police officer accompanying her admitted she did not know how to draft the required letter.
“This is the first time we’re following such a procedure. It’s new, and we don’t really know how to go about it,” the officer told her.
Even the computer operator at the office seemed unfamiliar with the process. Unsure of what needed to be done, she handed Janani a copy of a complaint previously submitted by the mother of a minor who had been sexually abused and said, “Write it like this.”
Sharing the personal details of one survivor, particularly a minor, with another survivor is not just deeply unethical, but a serious violation of privacy.
It risks exposing confidential, protected information and can further traumatise the person being shown such a document. The fact that staff involved were unaware of this points to a significant gap in training and sensitivity.
Although the TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women (Amendment) Act 2025 is progressive step towards ensuring women’s safety, recent incident suggest that, even seven months after its introduction, awareness of the law has yet to reach the frontlines.
Unless police personnel and administrative staff are properly trained and sensitised, the full intent of such legislation will remain unrealised.
This is an issue senior police officials must take seriously if the law is to serve its intended purpose.
South First contacted Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Social Welfare and Women’s Empowerment, Geetha Jeevan, regarding the caste-related questions reportedly posed by police officers in such cases.
“Did they really ask about her caste?” she responded, seemingly shocked.
“I will immediately speak to senior officials and ensure action is taken. Yes, some officers may behave this way, but we shouldn’t generalise or blame the entire department. The police are working seriously to protect women, and we will address these issues and fix them.”
Ajeetha says it’s not enough to make declarations about women’s safety it state’s promises don’t translate into real change.
“It’s not enough to claim ‘we’ve done this for women’s safety’ if nothing changes on the ground. Then the law has no real meaning,” she added pointing out that such inconsistency stems from how police personnel are appointed and trained.
“In the private sector, a person’s mental state and ability to work in teams are assessed. Why is it that public service roles like policing don’t follow the same rigour?”
Despite efforts from the government, including programmes like Putholi and various awareness initiatives, deaths in police custody continue.
“When the victim is a man, he may be beaten in custody. When it’s a woman, her complaints may be ignored altogether,” she said.
“The issue isn’t just sensitisation. Officers need to internalise the importance of fair treatment. Right now, whether justice is served depends entirely on whether the officer happens to be a good person. It shouldn’t be left to chance,” Ajeetha said.
“True justice is when survivors feel confident that they will be heard, no matter which station they approach.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
