The Madras High Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the Tamil Nadu police on Friday for their significant delay in appointing an inquiry officer in the sensitive Anna Nagar child sexual assault case. The court had taken suo motu cognizance of this grave matter more than a year ago, yet the police only recently designated an officer to investigate, prompting judicial censure.
Judicial Bench Highlights Systemic Failures
A division bench comprising Justice P Velmurugan and Justice M Jothiraman expressed profound disappointment with the police department's lethargic response. The bench pointed out the stark contrast in timelines: while the police took over a year to merely appoint an inquiry officer, that officer managed to complete the preliminary inquiry within just one week of being assigned.
Court's Scathing Remarks on Government Efficiency
"If the government decides to act with determination, it can conclude an inquiry within a week or even overnight," the bench remarked pointedly. This observation underscored the court's frustration with what it perceived as unnecessary bureaucratic delays in a case involving the serious violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
State's Assurance Meets Judicial Skepticism
Responding to the court's strong observations, Additional Advocate General J Ravindran submitted that the government had no intention of protecting anyone involved in the matter. He assured the bench that a proper and thorough inquiry would be conducted to address all concerns.
However, the bench refused to concur with these assurances, expressing skepticism about their sincerity. "The entire system has collapsed due to such assurances given by the state to the court," the judges stated emphatically, highlighting a pattern of unfulfilled promises in the judicial process.
Focus on Litigants Rather Than Court Satisfaction
When the Additional Advocate General further submitted that the government would take all necessary steps to satisfy the court, the bench delivered a crucial clarification. The judges emphasized that the state's obligation was not to satisfy the court, but rather to ensure justice for the litigants—particularly the vulnerable victims in such sensitive cases.
Case Background and Judicial Proceedings
The case involves a habeas corpus plea moved by the mother of the victim child, who was just 10 years old at the time of the sexual assault. The Madras High Court had taken suo motu cognizance of this distressing incident, recognizing its severity and the need for urgent judicial intervention.
The court has now reserved its order on the habeas corpus petition while directing disciplinary action against police officers who violated provisions of the POCSO Act. This case highlights ongoing challenges in the implementation of child protection laws and the judicial system's role in ensuring timely justice for victims of sexual violence.
