The Supreme Court of India on Monday (January 27, 2025) stayed the operation of the Madras High Court’s conclusions that the Chennai Police Commissioner and other officials were responsible for the leak of the First Information Report (FIR) and vital information about the identity of the survivor in the Anna University sexual assault case.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Naagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma froze, until further notice, certain portions of the High Court order of December 28, 2024, including observations that the Police Commissioner revealed vital information about the scene of the crime and that the language employed in the FIR amounted to victim-blaming. The incident occurred on December 24, 2025, on the university campus.
The High Court had criticised the Police Commissioner for disclosing the facts of the case and saying there was only one accused in the case during a press conference called two days after the incident without obtaining prior permission from the government.
The High Court had directed the State and the Home Secretary to initiate departmental inquiry into the leak of the FIR and initiate disciplinary proceedings against officials for their “lapse, negligence and dereliction.”
Appearing for the State government, senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Luthra, with advocates D. Kumanan and Sabarish Subramanian, submitted that the details of the victim and the FIR were leaked due to a “technical glitch” in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) managed by the Centre.
Mr. Rohatgi said the FIR was exposed inadvertently owing to the migration from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. “This has nothing to do with us. Yet, the judge hauls up the Police Commissioner and the constable who drafted the FIR,” Mr. Rohatgi submitted. He said the Police Commissioner had called the press meet to “soften the situation” as tensions had mounted high.
The State said it was not even opposing the decision of the High Court to form an all-woman Special Investigation Team (SIT) for the case. Justice Nagarathna asked if the survivor’s details were “still doing the rounds on social media.”
Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Luthra said everything has been blocked. He informed the Bench that a second FIR was registered by the police’s cybercrime wing to ferret out the offenders who circulated the details online for a time.
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, for the original petitioner in the High Court, R. Varalakshmi, retorted that “everything was blocked after the victim was named and shamed.” Mr. Rohatgi said Mr. Srinivasan’s client had political hues. “The alleged offender is a member of the ruling party. He is a history-sheeter. They are not investigating who else is involved,” Mr. Srinivasan submitted, accepting the court’s notice issued in the petition.
