Journalists were targeted for the mistake committed by a few officers probing the sensational Anna University sexual assault case. The Madras High Court condemned police for seizing mobile phones of journalists.
Published Feb 06, 2025 | 1:15 PM ⚊ Updated Feb 06, 2025 | 1:15 PM
The Madras High Court
Synopsis: Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees all Indian citizens the freedom of speech and expression. It includes the right to express one’s views through any medium, which can be by way of writing, speaking, gesture, or in any other form. It also includes the right of communication and the right to propagate or publish one’s opinion. The Chennai police’s action, however, violated this right guaranteed by the Constitution, besides attempting to shame the survivor in the sexual assault case.
Criticising the Chennai police for mishandling the first information report (FIR) in the Anna University sexual assault case, the Madras High Court upheld journalists’ rights and condemned the harassment of scribes under the pretext of a probe.
While ordering the protection of the journalists’ rights, the court condemned the language the police had used in the FIR. It also ordered the initiation of relief measures for the assault survivor, including a compensation of ₹25,00,000, which should be recovered from the police officers responsible for the leak of the FIR in the sensational case.
The case pertained to the alleged sexual assault of an engineering student on Anna University’s Guindy campus on 23 December 2024. Based on her complaint, the Kotturpuram All Women Police Inspector registered an FIR for offences committed under sections 63(a), 64(1), and 75(i)(ii) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
A man, a roadside biryani vendor, was arrested in the case, and remanded in judicial custody.
The FIR, which contained sensitive details including the survivor’s address and phone number, was uploaded to the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) portal by the police personnel and thereby made it available in the public domain. This raised concerns over privacy violations and the protection of the survivor.
According to the law, the identity or any information that would reveal the identity of a survivor or victim in sexual assault cases should not be made public.
Journalists who accessed the FIR on the CCTNS portal furnished the information provided in their reports. However, they said the survivor’s identity was concealed in the media reports.
After the news reports were published, the special investigation team confiscated the mobile phones of a few journalists and summoned many others for interrogation.
This led to an outcry with the Chennai Press Club and the Editors Guild of India condemning the police action. The journalists also approached the court against what they said was police highhandedness.
The petitioners contended that:
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the right to freedom and expression, which also includes the freedom of the press, the right to circulate, and the right to receive information.
The court found that the seizure of journalists’ electronic devices was unconstitutional, violating their rights against self-incrimination (Article 20(3)) and privacy (Article 21). It referred to Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India (the Pegasus snooping case), which emphasised the importance of protecting journalistic sources.
“Press freedom and privacy were allies and the fear of surveillance is an assault on the press, which is the fourth pillar of democracy. Therefore, in the guise of investigation, seizing the petitioners’ mobile phones, forcing them to provide access to their personal and private data, and asking them to reveal private and confidential information, is nothing but assaulting the press and oppressing them with the fear of surveillance,” the high court noted.
The court took serious note of the language used in the FIR, stating that it appeared to blame the survivor rather than focus on the crime. While the Chennai Commissioner of Police defended the FIR as a verbatim account of the survivor’s complaint, the court found it inappropriate and harmful, reinforcing victim-blaming narratives.
The judgement emphasised that:
Highlighting the procedural lapses and violation of privacy rights, the Madras High Court issued the following directives:
Officers to compensate: The Tamil Nadu government must pay an interim compensation of ₹25,00,000 to the survivor for the trauma caused by the police’s failure to prevent the FIR leak. The court directed that this amount be recovered from officers responsible for the leak.
Educational support: Anna University must allow the survivor to continue her education free of charge, covering tuition, hostel, exam, and mess fees. Counseling services must also be provided to support her academic progress.
Action against the Commissioner’s press conference: The court ruled that the press conference held by the Chennai Commissioner of Police, which disclosed sensitive case details without prior government approval, was unwarranted. The Tamil Nadu government was directed to examine the matter and take appropriate action.
The proper conduct of SIT probes: The SIT must refrain from harassing journalists, ensure investigations remain within legal bounds, and cease intrusive questioning unrelated to the case.
The court further cited the Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, which mandated that FIRs should be uploaded within 24 hours, except in cases involving sexual offenses, insurgency, or terrorism. By making the FIR public in this case, the police violated the Supreme Court guidelines.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
