Madras High Court strongly rebukes Tamil Nadu Police over the unauthorized leaking of the FIR in the Anna University sexual assault case, calling it a serious lapse in handling sensitive information.

The Madras High Court on Friday launched a sharp critique against the Chennai Police for leaking the identity of a 19-year-old student who was sexually assaulted on the Anna University campus. The Vacation Bench, comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice V Lakshminarayan, lambasted the authorities’ handling of the case and the apparent disregard for the victim’s privacy.
“Who will take responsibility for the trauma inflicted upon the victim’s family by this negligence? Such lapses erode trust in law enforcement and discourage others from seeking justice,” the Court observed. It noted that the unauthorized disclosure of the victim’s details would instill fear in parents and students alike, potentially deterring them from reporting crimes.
The Court criticized the police for failing to redact sensitive details before uploading the First Information Report (FIR). “While uploading an FIR is permissible, personal details of the victim must be carefully redacted. The damage caused by this lapse is irreversible. Provide us with an explanation by tomorrow morning,” the Bench demanded, adjourning the matter to Saturday.
The Court was hearing a batch of petitions calling for a thorough investigation into the incident. Advocate Jayaprakash, a petitioner and AIADMK member, highlighted the dire consequences of the leaked details and urged the Court to order an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a judge. However, the Bench rejected the request, stating that investigative work requires specialized expertise.
The crime occurred on December 23, and Gnanasekaran, a roadside biryani vendor, was arrested on December 25. The student’s complaint was also lodged with Anna University’s Internal Complaints Committee for addressing sexual harassment cases.
The judges expressed dismay at the premature statements made by the Commissioner of Police, who claimed only one accused was involved, even as the investigation was ongoing. “How can the Commissioner make such a conclusive statement during a press conference? What do your service rules say about making public comments in sensitive cases?” the Court asked.
Concerns about alleged custodial torture were also raised during the hearing. The judges questioned why the accused appeared with bandages on his limbs. The State claimed that he had sustained injuries while attempting to flee custody, but the Court sought a detailed explanation.
Anna University also came under scrutiny for security failures that enabled the incident to occur. “A crime was committed on your campus, yet a miscreant could roam freely while the police required permission to enter. What measures are in place to prevent such lapses in the future?” the Bench questioned.
Advocate GS Mani, another petitioner’s representative, alleged that custodial violence against the accused might be an attempt to silence him or conceal deeper issues. He highlighted the poor maintenance of CCTV cameras on the campus, with only 14 out of 70 functional.
The Advocate General, PS Raman, defended the State’s response, emphasizing that the accused was arrested within 24 hours of the complaint. However, the Court remained unimpressed. “The State’s constitutional duty is to prevent crimes, not to seek praise for making arrests after the fact,” the judges remarked.
The Bench also urged the State to address broader societal issues contributing to such crimes, such as drug abuse. “Drug-related offenses are a growing menace and need urgent attention. Prevention is always better than a reactive approach,” it added.
The judges emphasized the need for responsible public discourse following such incidents, cautioning against regressive narratives that blame women. “Let this incident not lead to absurd statements about women’s freedoms or their interactions with men. Such rhetoric is unwarranted and harmful,” the Court warned.
The State assured the Court of its commitment to upholding women’s rights and privacy while addressing lapses in the case. The Court adjourned the matter to Saturday, seeking a comprehensive explanation from the police regarding the FIR leak and further updates on the investigation.