The case of the sexual assault of the University of Anna

Justice GK ILANTHIRAIYAN He asked a sieve about repeatedly sending calls to journalists grilling them with questions about their personal life, and even grabbing their electronic devices claiming that journalists were sharing the company containing the details of the victim. The court asked why he selectively questioned journalists when he did not attempt to question the officers responsible for the leakage of FI.

When the additional government letter of KMD Muhilan informed the court that SIT only asked about the details of the collection of companies and sharing it and did not harass journalists, the court noticed that there was no question about the transfer when the company was sent in the WS. The website itself. The court added that the house official for the house of a relevant police station or officer responsible for the authorship of the FIR should be first examined. The court also criticized the way SIT even sought personal details of journalists, including the names of their ancestors.

“Why are you harassing journalists? You can’t ask for family details such as the names of the ancestors. You can’t harass. Why do you use mobile phones? You made it available in a public domain, and now you say that she has sent her. Where is the issue of transfer? You must return the devices. Why do you send many calls? Did you examine a police officer who was the author of the company and sent him to the website? “ The Tribunal asked.

Journalists turned to the Supreme Court, claiming that SIT hacked them without any materials. The petitioner argued that they have the right to publish and disseminate information that was publicly available, and their rights were protected in accordance with art. 19 para. 1 lit. a) the constitution.

The petitioners also argued that it was the Tamil Nadu police who sent a company in the public domain on CCTN on the Tamil Nadu police website and made it public and that the petitioner never revealed the identity of the victim. The petitioner also indicated that although they appeared before the seat and cooperated with the investigation, the sieve asked them irrelevant questions to their rights.

The petitioner also noted that under the guise of the stay granted by the Supreme Court, SIT did not examine against police officers. The petitioner stated that SC, in his order, explained that SLP short circuits would not be exposed to the investigation through the sieves and only the departmental investigation was left. In this way, the petition argued that SIT selectively questioned journalists, without asking any such questions for interested officers.

The petitioner also argued that SIT also did not observe the obligatory procedure provided for as part of BNSS for the purpose of attachment. It was claimed that the sieve had forced to take place from reporters in accordance with their whims and fantasies, and in violation of the right to privacy and the right against self -consultance guaranteed in accordance with art. 20 (30 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

Title of the case: V Ramkumar and others against the Tamil Nadu government and others

Quote: 2025 Livelaw (MAD) 45

Case No.: WP 3968 from 2025