The police had previously seized journalists' mobile phones without following proper legal procedures and had subjected them to inappropriate questioning, allegedly in an attempt to intimidate.
Published Feb 05, 2025 | 11:40 AM ⚊ Updated Feb 05, 2025 | 11:40 AM
Journalists protesting in front of the Chennai Press Club. (X)
Synopsis: Journalists who reported on the Anna University sexual assault case face harassment, illegal summons, and phone seizures, raising serious concerns about press freedom and government accountability. The Madras High Court strongly condemned the intimidation, questioning the motives behind shifting focus from justice for the survivor to silencing the media.
The Madras High Court on Tuesday, 4 February, strongly condemned the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Chennai Police formed to probe the Anna University sexual assault case for harassing journalists who reported on the case.
The court condemned the police for seizing journalists’ mobile phones without following proper legal procedures and subjecting them to inappropriate questioning. It ordered the immediate return of the seized devices.
The development had earlier sparked a broader debate on press freedom in the state, especially after Chennai Police Commissioner A Arun admitted that the FIR was publicly accessible due to a technical glitch. Despite this admission, instead of holding those responsible for the leak accountable, the government and police targeted journalists who reported on the case.
The controversy began on 25 December 2024, when reports emerged about the Anna University sexual assault case. Police took the accused, Gnanasekaran, into custody soon after.
The FIR, which became public due to a technical glitch, was shared among journalists in a professional group. Based on the FIR’s details, media outlets began reporting on the case whilst maintaining the victim’s anonymity.
Following these reports, AIADMK and BJP leaders questioned the state government’s commitment to women’s safety and demanded accountability. The growing political pressure put Tamil Nadu’s ruling DMK on the defensive.
In the days that followed, the discourse shifted from the sexual assault to the alleged “misuse” of the FIR by journalists.
As criticism mounted, Chennai Police Commissioner Arun and Higher Education Minister Govi Chezhiaan held consecutive press conferences, offering contradictory statements about the case. The Police Commissioner stated that the affected student filed a complaint through the POSH cell. However, the Higher Education Minister contradicted this. He claimed the student had directly approached the police and did not go through the POSH cell or the university. The Madras High Court condemned the Commissioner for disclosing sensitive details about the case in a press briefing.
According to journalists who went through the investigation, the Tamil Nadu government, from the outset, seemed more focused on protecting the police department rather than ensuring a swift investigation.The state even filed a petition seeking a stay on the departmental enquiry into the police’s handling of the case. Once the Supreme Court granted the stay, the focus shifted to journalists, particularly crime-beat reporters.
On 27 December 2024, the SIT issued summons to journalists via WhatsApp, an unlawful method of notification. The SIT sent the summons, initially requiring them to appear the same afternoon, late at night. When journalists questioned its legality, the police manually corrected the dates with a pen and resent the summons for the next day.
Journalists who appeared for questioning described the process as “harassment and intimidation”. Some waited for over five hours. Instead of focusing on how they obtained the FIR, the SIT allegedly interrogated them with irrelevant and intrusive questions, including details about their personal assets, foreign travel history over the past five years, and even their spouse’s background.
One journalist who was mistreated by the police during the investigation, speaking anonymously, expressed deep concern: “What if they use my personal details against me when I cover critical stories in the future? This is clearly meant to intimidate us.”
Adding to their ordeal, the SIT allegedly seized the mobile phones of three journalists without a warrant, violating legal protocols. The SIT interrogated more than 14 journalists, all of whom described the questioning as psychological intimidation rather than a legitimate investigation.
Rather than addressing police lapses and systemic failures, the government’s actions suggest an attempt to deflect blame. This case has now become a litmus test for Tamil Nadu’s commitment to press freedom, transparency, and accountability.
Further concerns have arisen over the SIT’s 60-question questionnaire, which allegedly included several inappropriate and irrelevant queries, such as bank account details, assets, and details of spouses and friends. The nature of these questions suggests a deliberate attempt to portray journalists as anti-government propagandists rather than conducting a fair and impartial investigation, allege the journalists.
Journalists who faced harassment during the investigation are raising a fundamental question: Is the government’s primary objective to secure justice for the survivor or to criminalise the journalists who exposed the case?
In response to allegations of police harassment, journalists staged protests and lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission. Seeking legal recourse, they also approached the Madras High Court, which strongly reprimanded the Tamil Nadu police for failing to follow due process.
Speaking to the media outside the court, Chennai Press Club Secretary Hasif, who attended the hearing, revealed that Justice GK Ilanthirayan questioned the Tamil Nadu police about their approach to the departmental enquiry.
Hasif stated, “The judge specifically asked whether the police had investigated the officer responsible for uploading the FIR and questioned how publicly accessible information could be classified as a leak.”
He further noted that the court acknowledged police misconduct and instructed authorities to refrain from mistreating journalists. A detailed court order on the matter is expected soon.
The famous Tamil saying, “ஆட்சிகள் மாறினாலும், காட்சிகள் மாறவில்லை” (“Governments may change, but oppression remains the same”), seems to resonate strongly in this case. Senior journalist AS Panneerselvan echoed a similar sentiment, stating, “The regime may change, but the government always takes the upper hand.”
Reflecting on the broader challenges facing journalism, Panneerselvan recalled how, during Rajiv Gandhi’s tenure as Prime Minister, the government introduced the Defamation Bill but ultimately withdrew it due to fierce resistance from journalists.
“Today, such strong and effective collective action is lacking. The past decade has been particularly challenging for free and independent journalism.
When asked about the DMK calling itself a “social justice government” whilst journalists are targeted under its regime, he responded, “I don’t think a regime change will make a difference. No one is genuinely interested in bringing change; As everyone benefits from the action, they choose to remain silent.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
