The Madras High Court recently emphasized that the police should focus on individuals responsible for leaking sensitive information in sexual assault cases, rather than filing charges against journalists and YouTubers who report or broadcast such details [Suo Motu v. Deputy Commissioner of Police and Another].
A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam made this observation while ordering the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate allegations that officers from an all-woman police station in Chennai violated the rights of a minor sexual assault victim and assaulted her parents.
Criminal cases were filed against a YouTuber and a journalist for allegedly broadcasting a conversation between the involved police inspector and the victim. The Court expressed concern over the police practice of targeting journalists and YouTubers, warning that it threatens press freedom.
“Whenever such publications are made, police are expected to find the real culprits who provided the videographs and information to the journalist, instead of filing criminal cases solely against the journalist,” the Court noted.
The case stems from claims by the victim’s parents that an inspector at the Anna Nagar All Women Police Station in Chennai interrogated their minor daughter without their presence. The parents further alleged that when they questioned the inspector’s conduct, they were assaulted, and their phones were confiscated.
A staff nurse from Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital confirmed that the mother was absent when the inspector questioned the victim in the hospital’s common corridor. A video of the victim’s statements made during this interrogation was later circulated on social media.
The petitioners alleged numerous irregularities by the police in registering the case and conducting the investigation, accusing officers of protecting the accused due to political connections.
Regarding the broadcast of the conversation between the inspector and the victim, the prosecution informed the Court that criminal cases had been initiated against a YouTuber and a journalist.
The Court noted that although the name of the accused was revealed in official documents by August 30, 2024, the police failed to arrest the individual until September 12, despite the accused living next to the victim. It criticized the police for this delay, especially since the investigation details had already been widely publicized on social media and in newspapers by September 7.
The Court ruled that the police procedures in registering the case and conducting the investigation violated the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Since the victim’s parents had lost faith in the police, the case was transferred to the CBI.
Advocate R Sampath Kumar represented the petitioner, while State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah and Additional Public Prosecutor E Raj Thilak appeared for the State Police.
