The rot within


The inordinate delay in the conviction and sentencing of S.P.S. Rathore raises uncomfortable questions about India’s criminal justice system.

THE belated conviction and sentencing of S.P.S. Rathore, former Director General of Police, Haryana, for molesting a minor girl two decades ago has certain lessons for India’s criminal jurisprudence. There was outrage after the trial court’s ruling on December 21 for more than one reason, which included the inordinate delay in the filing of the first information report (FIR) after the incident and the sentence – six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000 – that is lighter than what is warranted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Above all was the shocking discovery by civil society that Rathore had evaded all these years charges of harassment of the victim and abetment to her suicide, destruction of evidence and tampering with her post-mortem reports, illegal confinement of her brother and attempt to murder him, criminal conspiracy and misuse of power.

Although the victim made the complaint regarding the offence on August 16, 1990, the FIR was registered only on December 29, 1999. That too only after the intervention of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. This was upheld by the Supreme Court.

An FIR refers to information given by anyone to the officer-in-charge of a police station in relation to the commission of a cognisable offence, and which is first in point of time, and on the strength of which the police begin investigation into that offence. Section 354 (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) of the IPC, under which Rathore has been convicted, deals with a cognisable offence. The non-registration of an FIR for nearly a decade after the commission of the crime meant that Rathore could evade arrest and interrogation during that period. Had the FIR been promptly registered before the girl committed suicide in 1993, it is believed, the evidence against Rathore could have been stronger than what the court could rely on after her suicide. Rathore even challenged the authenticity of the victim’s signature on the original complaint submitted to the authorities in 1990. The trial court, however, relied on the evidentiary value of signatures of others on the complaint for basing its conviction.

In order to minimise the chances of the police not filing an FIR against a police officer, Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram, on December 28, urged them to register all complaints as FIRs. The heads of police stations, he pointed out, could be asked to give specific reasons for registration or non-registration of a case after receiving a complaint. Even if a complaint is false, the police have to register an FIR and investigate it before closing it, he advised the States, which have the exclusive responsibility for the police. Chidambaram, however, ruled out any formal advisory to the States on the issue.

Observers suggest that an amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) to make FIRs mandatory on receipt of a complaint might help. But that would require a huge increase in the number of police personnel, for which the States and the Centre are not ready financially.

It appears, therefore, that the Home Ministry is proposing superficial reforms, which are neither practical nor relevant to address the root cause of cases like that of Rathore who allegedly manipulated the system in his favour. Unfortunately, much of the anger against Rathore has not manifested in terms of a campaign for reforms in the police force.

Most State governments are reluctant to comply with the Supreme Court directives issued in September 2006 in the Prakash Singh case. These directives aim to insulate the police force in the States from political pressure and make it truly professional, besides making legislative changes. Even the Centre has not shown any enthusiasm to carry out police reforms. The court has now set up a monitoring committee with a two-year mandate to report on compliance with its directives.

The six months’ imprisonment and the Rs.1,000 fine for Rathore comes when the maximum punishment under Section 354 of the IPC is two years. The trial court’s justification of the lesser sentence citing the prolonged trial and Rathore’s age (68 years) was least convincing to any observer.

Following the trial court’s judgment, and the uproar in the media and civil society, the Haryana government set up a special investigation team (SIT) to investigate the three fresh FIRs registered on the basis of complaints filed by the victim’s brother and father, and after obtaining legal advice. These FIRs pertain to the non-bailable charge, under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment to suicide), of attempt to murder and harassment of the victim’s brother, doctoring of the post-mortem report of the victim after her suicide.

Rathore has questioned the legality of these FIRs, while seeking anticipatory bail. The Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Supreme Court have reviewed two of these charges and have given relief to Rathore. In the first case, Justice R.C. Kathuria of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an order of the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Ambala, dated October 23, 2001, concluding that a prima facie case for the addition of offence under Section 306 of the IPC was made out against Rathore and, accordingly, directing the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions. Justice Kathuria, while giving relief to Rathore, relied on the fact that at no stage had the victim made any statement to the police during the investigation of the case and that until her death in 1993 she had never come in contact with Rathore directly.

The Judge seems to have overlooked the fact that the police did not investigate the molestation case until 1999 when the FIR was filed and that there was no occasion for the victim to make a statement to the police.

The Special Judicial Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Ambala, added the offence under Section 306 IPC in the CBI’s charge sheet on the basis of an application made by Madhu Prakash, the mother of Aradhana, the victim’s friend and an eyewitness to the molestation. In her application, Madhu Prakash stated that the CBI, during the investigation, had recorded the statement of key witnesses, including herself, that Rathore had made life hell for the victim, which led her to commit suicide in 1993. Additionally, it was also submitted that the victim’s brother was falsely implicated in six criminal cases at the behest of Rathore. Of these, the court discharged him in four cases. In the remaining two, the police found that the allegations were not substantiated and dropped the proceedings against him.

More important, it was also brought to the notice of the SJM that the CBI had not examined the victim’s brother and had not taken into account the post-mortem report and the inquest report of the victim. Before the SJM, the CBI contested Madhu Prakash’s application for inclusion of Section 306 of the IPC in its charge sheet because it did not find the applicability of Sections 306 and 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) against Rathore.

However, the CBI took a different stand before Justice Kathuria. It said the witnesses had said during the investigation that Rathore had indeed harassed the victim, her friend Aradhana and their family members after the molestation incident. The witnesses had also apparently said that the victim could not even visit the nearby market and that it was Aradhana who used to make minor purchases for her. The CBI also said that the fact of the false implication of the victim’s brother in criminal cases and his being beaten up by personnel of the Haryana Police at the behest of Rathore were reported to it.

The Investigating Officer of the CBI verified these statements of witnesses and summed up his findings. First, he said, the victim’s name was struck off from the Sacred Heart School, Chandigarh, in September 1990 because of non-payment of fees from April 1990 onwards. Second, he cited the statements of the victim’s grandfather and two maternal uncles that the victim’s death was from taking weight-reduction medicines, and that they did not suspect the involvement of anyone in her death.

Third, he said that the victim’s brother did not make himself available and hence could not be examined. Fourth, contradicting the statements of the victim’s grandfather and the uncles, he suggested that the cause of the victim’s death, as per chemical examination, was poisoning. Based on the I.O.’s findings, Justice Kathuria concluded that Section 306 did not apply to Rathore.

Did the CBI refuse to include Section 306 in its charge sheet against Rathore under pressure? Former CBI joint director R.M. Singh said his attempts to charge Rathore with abetment to suicide were thwarted. When asked why the CBI, during his term, did not charge Rathore with abetment to suicide of the victim, the CBI’s then Director, R.K. Raghavan, said: “The insinuation that the CBI acted under pressure from the accused is without basis. Whatever decisions were taken were on the basis of facts collected by the Investigating Officer and later subjected to strict legal scrutiny. These decisions have since been upheld by the court.”

On April 12, 2002, the Supreme Court rejected Madhu Prakash’s appeal against Justice Kathuria’s judgment without stating any reasons. Observers point out that both the High Court and the Supreme Court only discharged (and not acquitted after a proper trial) Rathore from Section 306. Therefore, a fresh FIR making the charge of abetment to suicide is valid, they say.

Rathore got relief again from the Supreme Court in 2005, when it set aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing the District Judge to conduct an inquiry to ascertain the truth of the averments made by the victim’s brother in his affidavit on December 3, 2001, that he was implicated in false criminal cases and harassed by the police at the instance of Rathore. The High Court had sought to know from Rathore and the Haryana government why they should not be burdened with the compensation awarded to the victim’s brother for the harassment caused to him by falsely implicating him in car theft cases. The Supreme Court gave relief to Rathore on technical grounds by holding that neither the news report (on the basis of which the High Court took suo motu action) nor the judgment discharging the victim’s brother in the car theft cases mentioned Rathore’s involvement. The High Court had deemed it proper to direct an inquiry since the matter was of serious nature involving the violation of the fundamental rights of the victim’s brother.

On January 3, the Central Police Awards Committee of the Ministry of Home Affairs decided to strip Rathore of his Police Medal, awarded in 1985 for meritorious service.

It also took a generic decision to authorise the Ministry to recommend the withdrawal of police medals from all persons who are convicted for moral turpitude and for an act that brings disrespect to the police forces. Union Law Minister M. Veerappa Moily has proposed a new law, Sexual Offences (Special Courts) Bill, 2010, to make character evidence illegal and sexual offences cognisable.

These steps, though important, are inadequate to address the concerns in the aftermath of the Rathore case. In an open letter to Moily on January 5, the representatives of 14 women’s groups and 44 leading women’s activists pointed out that Section 354 of the IPC did not redress sexual harassment of women in public or private spaces. It assumes that only some women and children have modesty and are seen as deserving the protection of law, they said.

They have suggested a gradation of sexual assault which squarely name sexual harassment, molestation, stalking, parading and stripping as sexual violence (not amounting to rape). Hopefully, various civil society groups will seek to influence the government and Parliament to reform suitably the current laws concerning violence against women.

Read the Article at:


‘Common people are afraid to approach us’

TOI Crest, 16 January 2010, 11:33am IST

Those who claim to see ghosts will always fear the dark. Babloo – not his real name – has seen the devil and will remain terrorised of it till his last day. A resident of Indira Nagar in Lucknow, the very sight of the colour khaki sends chills down his battered body. He has been seeing psychiatrists and undergoing therapy ever since he spent a harrowing seven days with the police some years ago. But things like a car battery, electricity cables, a cooking heater and pliers still scare the life out of him. When the police let him off – they wanted Babloo to confess to a murder he never committed – his ear lobes were charred, his palms were so swollen that they looked like pillows, and two of his toes had been sliced open after nails were hammered into them. But there are countless others who don’t have to be tortured to fear the police in India. It’s common for Indians to make way for cops when they are behind you, and walk at a safe distance when they are in front of you. Truant children are often threatened with a call to the policeman, as if they were some evil spirit. There is a dread, and it is all pervasive, all encompassing.

“This is because the police have no fear of punishment and there is total lack of accountability ,” says former IPS officer-turned lawyer Y P Singh. “And they are sure that the senior officers will always bail them out.”

Giving a more nuanced view, political scientist Imtiaz Ahmed says, “The explanation for the kind of police we have lies in the fact that we have a colonial police. Neither the structure nor the orientation of the police has changed. The colonial attitude – in which the only interest was to establish their rule at any cost – still persists. The police responds to the government, not to the people.”

He adds, “The police behaves the way it does partly because the recruitment of personnel comes mostly from the dominant castes in each area. For example, the Jats predominate in the Delhi and Haryana units, especially in the constabulary and above. The feudal attitude is there for all to see. They continue to be oppressive, carrying forward the characteristic in their interaction with the public. And the Indian state has become more khaki… The attitudes of dominance and coercion are reflected in various aspects of the state.”

Vikas Narayan Rai, DGP, Haryana Police Academy, feels the police can improve only if society is empowered. “By ’empowered’ I mean they should have the means to assert their legal right. In our country a person feels totally helpless whether he goes to a police station, a court, or a hospital. They should have rights that can be enforced. We have inherited our police from our colonial masters. The same system persists and now that I am associated with police training I realize what kind of training we are giving. They are being trained to deal with criminals and not with common people though 90 per cent of the time they are dealing with citizens . The mindset has to change and the police has to be sensitized, they have to be conditioned to the values of democracy, to the rights of the common citizen. That change of mindset is difficult to achieve after 200 years of colonial rule. But it is possible and it is being done.”

Former police and security supremo Julio Rebeiro has a solution. “It is very simple ,” he said. “The police force should be free from all political interference. Until this is done the force cannot be improved. The crux of the problem is the interference of the politician in the police department. Leave it to the commissioner of police to take all decisions , including transfers and postings from inspectors to deputy commissioners and above. The political godfathers decide the postings for better known reasons and the officers are not interested in serving society . It is time the government wakes up before the situation becomes worse.”


Police State: Terror in Uniform

Anand Soondas , TIMES OF INDIA  Crest,  16 January 2010, 11:33am IST

The youngest of Meera Yadav’s three daughters , Parul, just 4, was still crying, unhappy with the frugal dinner of some rough rice and boiled potatoes, when she heard a soft knock on the rickety tin fence that served as a door for her shapeless little shack. A burly man stood outside, somewhat unsteady on his legs due to what smelled like freshly consumed alcohol. There were two others behind him, laughing at a crude joke one of them had just cracked. “Is that your husband,” asked the first policeman. Before she could answer, they had dragged him out in the open. By now, all the three kids were screaming with fear. The blows kept raining. It stopped long after the villagers in one of Chandigarh’s slums had collected in numbers and gathered enough courage to demand from the assaulters a reason for the battering. It was only the next day that Meera would know what their crime was – her husband had taken off the Shiromani Akali Dal flag someone had planted on the roof of their hut and replaced it with the one belonging to a party he would vote for in the Assembly elections. “But when I rushed to the cops to complain, they pushed me out of the thana. One of them threatened to file a case against me instead,” Meera would later say, shuddering more at the menace in the policemen’s voice than at the incident. “They said the next time I came with a complaint against the goons, they would beat me and the children.” Meera was lucky she didn’t go back to the cops – a mistake Sarita made. The desperate 22-year-old had gone to the Rohtak police station for the umpteenth time, pleading with the officers to let her husband, who was framed in a cooked-up motorcycle theft case, go. It was then that the constables on duty thought they had tolerated her enough. They gang-raped her. Sarita committed suicide at the Haryana police headquarters on June 9, 2008. When her distraught husband and small child sat on a dharna to ask for justice, the police promptly picked them up and had them locked up.

A 45-year-old mother and her 24-year-old son would kill themselves a year later in Jind, Haryana again, unable to take the harassment and torture of the police. “They were just petitioning for action on the murder of my elder son,” Ramdiya said, recounting the death of his wife Dayawanti and son Sandeep in October last year. “Both were forcibly thrown into Ambala jail on August 11, 2009, like hardened criminals. They couldn’t take it anymore. I had such a happy family. I have no one left now. Everybody’s dead.” In neighbouring Punjab, on a cold January day in 2001, Avtar Singh, the only son of his parents, asked three men blocking a narrow Ludhiana street with their car – they were drinking and eating to let him pass. That was an affront police inspector Gurmit Singh Pinky could not digest. He pumped a fistful of bullets into the young man’s chest. Equally heinous was the case of Swaran Singh Hundal, who killed promising folk singer Dilshad Akhtar with an AK-47 after the artist declined to sing a song the cop wanted him to. Hundal was dismissed from service and was jailed for a while, but the police top brass later reinstated him and the killer retired as DSP in 2002. It’s a different matter that Hundal, who was charged in other cases as well, committed suicide in 2008.


But if what Pinky and Hundal did was dastardly, Ajit Singh Bains, a retired judge of the Punjab and Haryana high court, recounts a horrifying incident which was depraved. “In October 1991, some policemen killed a one-and-a-half-year-old baby and seven other members of the family, including three women,” he said.”Their method of murder was atrocious and they actually peeled off the victims’ skin and poured hot tar and diesel on their wounds. No action was taken against these cops.”

There’s an unmistakable swagger in modern day cops as they increasingly turn into a brutal and brutalising force. Armed with the knowledge that a mostly corrupt lot of MPs, MLAs and ministers, with skeletons in their own cupboards, will not be able to wield the moral lathi to rein them in, the conduct of officers and even lower-ranked men in the police has only become more brazen, more bizarre. It is perhaps this that allows men like SPS Rathore to believe they can first molest a young girl and then browbeat her family into submission. And the way the former Haryana DGP turned the entire system into accomplices – ministers, local netas, school authorities, his minions in the department – as he hounded Ruchika Girhotra into committing suicide is a case study of how top cops have the power to do what they want with the lives of the truly disenfranchised, which in India is anyone who doesn’t have a real “connection” to make his voice heard.

The Rathore shame – his cronies during a torture session went to the extent of offering Ruchika’s brother urine when he asked for water – played out even as a Rajasthani tribal woman, who was allegedly raped by a police officer 13 years ago, cried again for justice. The case involved a former DIG of Rajasthan police, Madhukar Tandon, who took advantage of his influence and managed to evade the law for 13 years. After the ongoing hue and cry over the Ruchika case, and subsequent protests by the Alwar-based victim, the state government appointed teams to nab the culprit. Not surprisingly, Tandon has managed to evade arrest. It is also this cocky belligerence that allows a DGP like B B Mohanty to indefinitely shield his son, Bitti, accused of raping a German tourist in Rajasthan. And though the government of Naveen Patnaik suspended Mohanty, who was heading the home guards then, the punishment was revoked later. Bitti, granted a 14-day parole on November 20, 2006, jumped it and has been on the loose since.

Or take the case of the string of officers who played host to fake stamps kingpin Abdul Karim Telgi, even offering him chicken biryani once while he was in their custody. Something which was never reported, but widely heard by crime reporters doing the rounds of the Crawford Market police headquarters in Mumbai, was that the wife of a police commissioner in the ’90s would book a room in a city hotel once every month for officers under her husband to come with their “collections” of the last 30 days. So confident are cops that they can get away with anything, they don’t seem to care a whit about normal ethics or morality- like the Mumbai policemen who were caught having fun at a Christmas-eve party sponsored by the Chhota Rajan gang. An embarrassed Ashok Chavan government in Maharashtra quickly suspended five errant men, among them DCP V N Salve and ACP Prakash Wani.


In all this, what is most disconcerting is the parallel business policemen, across ranks and departments, run in the name of dispensing justice or tackling crime. A textile businessman’s vehicle was recently stopped in Mumbai by cops who wanted him to pay them hafta (protection money). The police had already gathered information on him from his rivals and demanded Rs 2.5 lakh every month. The deal did not work out and soon the businessman was booked for “carrying arms”.

“I know of several instances where our own personnel pursue business interests with people of questionable background,” a senior officer admitted wryly. IPS officerturned-lawyer Y P Singh said, “They do this because they have no fear of punishment and there is total lack of accountability. Plus, they are sure that seniors will support them.”

The arrest of encounter specialist Pradeep Sharma, with whom the law finally caught up for staging fake encounters, is a case in point. “He had a free run till some years ago,’’ a colleague said. “Senior police officers gave him the go-ahead for encounters without ascertaining the real reason. He was running a parallel force. Sharma, in return, helped his friends get plum postings through his political connections.”

Then there was a builder who got his rival booked through IPS officer Bipin Bihari for attempted murder. “We took action by suspending the team involved. But I agree that they believed they could manage the criminal justice system. It is alarming that officers are being used to settle scores,” a senior police officer said.


But it is the poor across India who are most at risk from a rampaging force. It is they who cower, almost at all times, from the unpredictable, brute violence the men in uniform are capable of unleashing. K Guruviah, a farmer, and his wife Angammal, of M Kallupatti near Usilampatti in Tamil Nadu, were picked up by the police in July 1998 on the suspicion that they had received some stolen goods from a gang of thieves. Both were tortured for seven days, and at Oomachikulam police station they were undressed and made to simulate sex in the presence of police officials. Some of them later physically abused Angammal. Guruviah died moments after he was admitted to hospital.

Far from Chennai, Rajendra Yadav, a resident of Telari in Jharkhand, was taken into custody by the Chhatarpur police on December 30 last year. There was no arrest warrant. Barely 24 hours after he was taken to IPS officer Jatin Narwal’s residence in Palamau — where he complained of severe stomach pain — he was dead. A postmortem revealed severe assault had led to his death.

In the infamous and widely-publicised Rizwanur Rahman case, Justice Dipankar Dutta of Calcutta high court said, “It is an inescapable conclusion that there are two police stations. Lalbazar (police headquarters) is for the influential ones. And local police stations are for the aam aadmi. It is disgraceful that people have to knock on the high court’s door to lodge an FIR.”

Rahman, who was in love with Priyanka, the daughter of industrialist Ashok Todi, was found dead on the railway tracks on the outskirts of Kolkata on September 21, 2007. The CBI named seven accused in its chargesheet — Ashok Todi, his brothers Pradip and Anil Saraogi, IPS officer Ajoy Kumar, police officers Sukanti Chakraborti and Krishnendu Das, and S K Moinuddin alias Pappu, a social worker. In an equally shocking incident, Kaimur district police, in Bihar, procured arrest warrants against six-year-old Chaniya Khatun and her five-year-old sister Soni after they found them “guilty of killing” their 18-year-old sister-in-law for dowry last July.

It’s probably worse in the northeast, where the mainstream media doesn’t really reach, and people remain cut off from “mainland India” due to culture, infrastructure and distance. A startling 150 people were allegedly killed in fake encounters by Manipur Police Commandos last year alone. Police excesses in the state known for its rampant extra-judicial killings grabbed national attention when Chungkham Sanjit Singh, a reformed militant, was shot dead in Imphal on July 23, 2009 in broad daylight. A photographer captured the murder on camera and the photos found their way to magazines and newspapers across the country. Though the police claimed Sanjit had a gun, the images clearly showed an unarmed Sanjit talking politely to police commandos minutes before he was dragged inside a pharmacy. Besides Singh, a pregnant Rabina Devi was also killed.

The national capital Delhi is no better. Recently, a head constable beat up a 17-yearold boy, accused of stealing a mobile phone, so badly that he succumbed to his injuries. American journalist Jose Elliott had a taste of the Indian police’s barbarity when he was allegedly beaten up by men at the Hazrat Nizamuddin police station on October 8 last year. Elliott claimed cops thrashed him for “intervening” when someone was being kicked around.

Amazingly, Delhi Police officers told TOICrest there is “minimum cruelty and highhandedness” that can actually be attributed to their personnel. “We keep sanitizing our force. They are always being trained in manners and courtesy,’’ a senior officer said. “There is hardly any case in which a wrong person has been framed or jailed.” Tell that to Meera Yadav, Chungkham Sanjit’s bereaved family, Ruchika’s distraught brother, Sarita’s orphaned child and the countless others who are kicked and shoved around.


Indian court asks government to curb sex tourism

Jan 17, 2010

In view of the increasing incidences of rape, sexual offences, sexual abuse of children, particularly street-children, the Indian government and the law ministry were urged to redefine rape and include related sexual offences in its ambit.

While the Supreme Court has asked the government to come out with foolproof measures to curb ‘sex tourism’ in the country and register cases of rape against those pushing children into prostitution rackets or having sex with them, a delegation of representatives from various national women’s organisations has met and submitted a memorandum to the Union law minister Veerappa Moily demanding that the Sexual Offences (Special Courts) Bill be introduced in Parliament and the definition of rape be expanded and punishment be enhanced.

Expressing shock at the fact that 70 per cent of sex workers are children, a two-judge Bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and AK Patnaik said: “Obviously, it is a case of rape if the girls are less than 18 years. If you register 376 IPC (rape) cases, they (accused) will learn the lessons of their life. But the problem is that you don’t do it.”

The apex court said this enormous problem cannot be addressed in a mechanical manner. “We need enormous efforts to deal with it. Gigantic problems have to be dealt on a priority basis,” the judges observed. The apex court gave the direction to solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam during the hearing on a PIL after counsel Aparna Bhat, appearing for certain NGOs, submitted that child prostitution amounted to rape and the menace has reached alarming proportions.

“Just taking them out of the brothel and putting them on the streets is not going to solve the problem. The efforts will bear fruits only after they are properly rehabilitated which is their right (children) under Article 21 (right to liberty),” the apex court said.

Source: ANN

Rathore isn’t the only guilty man around


Such is the reality of today’s India that there is never a shortage of cases that leave us moved and indignant. But every now and then, there is a case that also makes us thoughtful. The Ruchika case is one such instance. In case you haven’t been following the details of the case, here’s what happened.

Ruchika was a happy, school-going 14-year-old with a passion for tennis. As often as she could, she would practise at the state tennis association’s courts. At that time, a police officer called S.P.S. Rathore was president of the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association. In August, 1990, Rathore called Ruchika to his office and molested her. Ruchika was traumatised, told family friends and eventually her father found out. Nine days later, on August 21, 1990, she recorded a statement before the then DG of Haryana, R.R. Singh. That should have been enough to finish off Rathore’s career.  Instead, it finished off Ruchika — and eventually, nearly finished off her family.

Rathore contacted Ruchika’s father and said that if she did not withdraw the complaint, he would destroy the family. He proved as good as his word. When the complaint was not withdrawn, he sent policemen to Ruchika’s house to threaten the family. They would be thrown out of the house and arrested, they were told. Then, goondas began turning up at night and throwing stones at the house. During the day, they would scream filthy abuse at Ruchika. The family could not complain because the goondas appeared to have police protection. Next, false cases of auto-theft were registered against Ashu, Ruchika’s brother. When the family still did not buckle under, Ruchika was thrown out of one of Chandigarh’s top schools where she had studied since she was a child — and where Rathore’s daughter was also a student. She had to give up tennis, her great passion. She began to live like a prisoner in her house.

Then, the police arrested Ashu and began torturing him. He was beaten up again and again, often in the presence of Rathore who threatened him even as his policemen tortured the boy. In October, 1993, Ashu was picked up by the police and according to his own statement, was handcuffed and paraded around the neighbourhood. “The police officers were abusing my sister and father. I was like an animal in a cage…my father begged the police to be afraid of God and not to inflict this torture on me.” Ashu was beaten up again in jail. He was denied food and water. When eventually, he was released on December 23, 1993, he had another shock waiting for him. Unable to live this way, Ruchika had committed suicide.

The false cases against Ashu were thrown out by the courts. But the family’s torture did not end there. When Ruchika’s father tried to get justice for his dead daughter, he was threatened again and driven out of his home. He went underground to avoid a vengeful Rathore and spent several years in Himachal. But thanks to his courage and the bravery of his friend Anand Prakash, and his daughter Aradhana, the case of molestation against Rathore remained alive.

A few days ago, nearly two decades after the incident had occurred, a court finally held Rathore guilty. He was sentenced to a mere six months in jail and walked out of the courtroom smirking. Anybody who saw Ruchika’s father on TV will sympathise with the grief and helplessness of a good man who has lost nearly everything. And I can entirely understand why so many people feel the urge to pick up a gun and see that vigilante justice is done at once, given that the system has failed. (Though, of course, this would be wrong, etc. etc.) But it’s not enough to be angry. We need to focus on the lessons of this sad and tragic tale.

First of all, why did Rathore get away with the molestation in 1990 when Ruchika filed a complaint before the then DGP, R.R. Singh? It was because he was close to Haryana politicians. R.R. Singh now says that political pressure ensured that no action was taken. The then Home Secretary also says that he was unable to move against Rathore because of political pressure.

Ruchika’s father says that the politician in question was O.P. Chautala. Of course Chautala denies this and his supporters blame other politicians. But nobody denies that Ruchika died because politicians protected Rathore. What does this say about our system? It has become a knee-jerk reaction for the middle class to blame politicians for everything. But the truth is that politicians can only function if officials help them. The real problem is not that politicians are venal but that members of the educated middle class — IAS and IPS officers — either help them in return for protection and advancement (as Rathore clearly did) or refuse to speak out when injustice is committed. It is all very well for various Haryana officials to now blame politicians. But where were they when Ashu was being tortured? Where were they when Ruchika was driven to suicide?

Secondly, why is the judicial system so slow and infirm? Even if we accept that the police were unwilling to file charges or take action, the case did eventually go to court. Even then, it took till 2009 for Ruchika’s father to achieve any kind of justice — however inadequate — for his daughter. If the legal system had moved faster, Ruchika’s father would not have been forced to go underground and his family would not have been destroyed.

Lawyers will tell you that everybody knows what needs to be done to fix the judicial system: more courts, more judges etc. But no government does it. No electorate demands it. It never becomes an issue. And millions are denied justice in India every day. Thirdly, the reason we are so angry about the Ruchika case is because we can see her father on TV and hear his story. But let’s not forget that each year there are thousands of Ruchikas. India’s policemen, officials and politicians mistreat, torture, molest, rob and rape poor people all the time. Because the victims are not middle-class, we never get to hear of these cases. Look at it logically. If Rathore could destroy a respectable, middle-class family, how do you suppose he would treat a poor, helpless family? And do you really believe that Ruchika was the first girl he molested? How many other cases have gone unreported because the parents did not have the guts or the resources to fight for justice?

So, let’s punish Rathore.

But let’s not stop there. Let’s find the cops who tortured Ashu. They knew what they were doing. They should be, first, thrown out of service and then should face legal proceedings. If cops feel that there is no accountability — which, frankly, there isn’t — they will continue to harass and torture citizens. It is time the present Chief Minister of Haryana took a stand to make up for the sins of his fellow politicians. And as for us, in the middle class and media, I am sure our pressure will yield results. But we need to go beyond our class and our interests.

Millions of Indians face injustice that is even worse.  It is our duty to fight for them, as well.

Rape of the law- State machinery has failed to act


India is not a banana republic. But certain incidents indicate that the country is rapidly forfeiting the right to be counted among the civilized nations. Take the rape of a Russian girl in Goa. Shanta Ram Naik, a member of the Rajya Sabha, the House which sets tone to public debates, wants a different treatment of the rape cases in which women move around with strangers after midnight. The member expressed no regret for the rape because the Russian girl was outside her place past 12 at night.

I thought Goa Chief Minister Digambar Kamat would have taken Naik to task. But nothing like that happened. Instead, the Chief Minister said that a girl who went out with a man at night was asking for something like rape. He did not care for the impression he was creating through his statement inside India and in foreign countries.

Asked about the action his government would take against the member, the Chief Minister said: “Let the Russian government write to me.” Yet his police has been trying to bribe the girl repeatedly. The last offer made to her was Rs. 15 lakh.

Congress Foreign Minister S.M.Krishna had no word of condemnation either. He merely said: “Foreigners should be more careful.” I do not know whether the Minister for Tourism would agree with the Foreign Minister. But how does Goa expect foreigners or, for that matter, Indians to visit the place where one of the ministers of the state says that Goa is the “rape capital of the world.”

The incident prompted Moscow’s Consul General in Mumbai, Alexander Mantytsky, to write to the Indian authorities about the concern he felt on behalf of his nation.

According to one estimate, the Russians make up about 40,000 of the 400,000 international tourists who visit Goa every year.

Sabina Martins, who runs the NGO, Bailancho Saad, has let the cat out of the bag when she says: “No longer does tourism advertisements talk about the natural beauty or the hospitable nature of the state. It is now promoted along the ‘wine, women and song’ line, which is different from the local culture.”

What has shocked me the most is the silence of Sonia Gandhi, the Congress president. She is probably busy calculating what political repercussion the action against the accused, John Fernandes, a heavyweight in the state, would have on the Congress government in Goa.

True, the party rule hangs in balance because the revolt of a few members can make the government fall or bring the opposition to power. But is this what counts ultimately? No morality, only politics!

A television network has asked for three days in a row why no action has been taken against the rapist. Some Parliament members have also posed the same question to the government. But it has preferred to remain silent.

The question is whether the state machinery has any responsibility to pursue the case where a rape has been committed. The accused may be let off or there may be nothing proved against him. But how can the police, looking after the law and order machinery, sit silent? It is apparent that political pressure can let off
the rapists.

This is confirmed by a case in Haryana. After 19 years, a special court of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has sentenced former state Director General of Police SPS Rathore to six months’ imprisonment and fined Rs 1,000. He was accused of molesting a 14-year-old girl. I

t is a travesty of justice that the police Director General gets only six months in prison. The court is not to blame for a light sentence because the CBI, for obvious reasons, refused to charge the DGP for the real crime. The FIR was filed nine years after the molestation and that too was changed to a memorandum. The pressure used can well be imagined. Still the state government found Rathore so useful, then IG, that he was promoted after four years of his committing the crime.

How powerful was Rathore can be judged from the fact that goons were placed outside the victim’s house to accost and harass her whenever she stepped out. Her house was pelted with stones, smattering the windows.

Three years later she consumed insecticide and died a day later. Her father sold the house in Panchkula, near Chandigarh, and went to Kolkata. Two brothers of the victim faced 11 cooked-up cases which went on for years before they were acquitted.

The mother says in a statement: “We were threatened when we filed a memorandum against Rathore for exemplary punishment.” But Rathore was given a bail even for the light imprisonment. The entire police system in Haryana and the CBI, which played with the investigation have to be cleaned up.

Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Mukul Mudgal can appoint a special team to reinvestigate the case. The Supreme Court did so in the case of Gujarat where it found the judgment was not correct.

It is time that the government introduces the much-awaited police reforms and overhauls the judicial system. How can a case of molestation against a former DGP go on for 19 years? All those ministers, bureaucrats and police officials who are responsible for the cover-up should be brought to justice.

Let this be a test case to punish even the highest in the country. After knowing the details, the nation feels abhorred and inaction would look like a compromise with pressure and power.

Yet another affront comes from an American Ice cream company, Haagen-Dazs. While opening its branch at Delhi, it puts outside a board to say that only international passport holders can buy ice cream, thereby meaning that no Indian could enter.

This was an outrage for a sovereign country. The company removed the board but it did not tender an apology. The company merely said that the advertisement idea did not work the way it imagined it would. A simple question that the company should answer is: Would it have dared to put up such a board in America, the country which owns the company?

The developed countries consider the Third World a playground to test their arrogant and bizarre ideas. But then the Third World has become prone to humiliation.

Rape of the law
State machinery has failed to act
by Kuldip Nayar

India is not a banana republic. But certain incidents indicate that the country is rapidly forfeiting the right to be counted among the civilized nations. Take the rape of a Russian girl in Goa. Shanta Ram Naik, a member of the Rajya Sabha, the House which sets tone to public debates, wants a different treatment of the rape cases in which women move around with strangers after midnight. The member expressed no regret for the rape because the Russian girl was outside her place past 12 at night.

19 years, 6 months


On August 12, 1990, police officer S.P.S. Rathore molested 14-year-old Ruchika Girhotra. That it has taken all of 19 years to be able to write that sentence without fear of libel tells us something of our criminal justice system. And in those 19 years Ruchika committed suicide, her family went through hell, Rathore rose up the ranks to become Haryana’s top police officer. When a beaming Rathore walked out of a Chandigarh court on Monday, convicted of molestation but sentenced to just six months in jail, the verdict mocked all that our law and justice system stands for.

In the 19 years between Ruchika’s first complaint to Monday’s judgment, the crime of molestation was compounded by many other horrors. First was the long delay in filing an FIR, despite the then Haryana DGP’s recommendation. Then there was the prolonged hounding of the Girhotra family. The many cases filed against Ruchika’s brother were finally halted only after the Punjab and Haryana high court stepped in. Meanwhile, the family went into hiding, and Ruchika killed herself. Even in death, she was besmirched. In court, the defence counsel’s lengthy arguments cast aspersions on her character and that of her father. Though no charges of abetment to suicide or criminal harassment have been successfully proved against Rathore, the travesty of justice that Ruchika and her family faced — over and above her molestation — is in plain sight.

In this context, it is still some consolation that Rathore’s crime has been confirmed by a court of law — even if the sentence seems paltry for such a crime and other accusations remain unresolved. The case shows once again how inept the system can be, by design or otherwise, in speedily processing cases. Prompt registering of an FIR, a speedy trial and swift conviction might have prevented the many horrors that followed Rathore’s original crime. Besides, when there is clear power asymmetry between the perpetrator and the victim, the judicial process must be extra-sensitive to protecting the victim and complainants against retribution. S.P.S. Rathore was even at the time of the crime a powerful officer; in a shocking act of political indifference, he was promoted all the way to eventually become Haryana’s DGP. As the higher judiciary and law ministry ponder ways to speed up justice delivery, the many injustices inflicted on Ruchika Girhotra during the agonisingly long wait for justice provides a salutary, if sobering, lesson.

Juvenile justice


A saga of negligence and apathy


Children are the most vulnerable group in any population. They can be exploited, ill-treated and directed into undesirable channels by anti-social elements. In Legal Aid committee V. UOI, the Supreme Court observed, “children require the protective umbrella of society for better growth and development as they are not in a position to claim their entitlements.”

The state is the foster father for all those children who are deprived of parental care. It has the duty of giving protection to them.

Ideally, every home should be a ‘Child Care Home’ but the ground realities are different. Materialism has adversely affected familial relationships. Consumerism has taken its toll on social bonding. Homes are breaking and indifference has settled in community behaviour. We are evolving as individuals but degenerating as a social animal. In the prevailing cultural and social milieu, children have been led to the doorsteps of criminal world.

According to the National Crime Record Bureau, 32,681 juveniles are arrested by police every year in India on charges of murder, rape, dacoity, robbery, burglary, theft, hurt and other crimes. Six percent of them are girls. Juvenile delinquency has increased by 1.1 per lakh of population in 1995 to 1.7 per lakh of population in 2008. Poverty and illiteracy were the two main causative factors behind this.

In all, 27 per cent of the arrested juveniles were illiterate, 37 per cent under primary, 72 per cent from the BPL families, 6.8 per cent from the middle income group and 0.2 per cent from the high income group. The ill-effects of juvenile delinquency can be mitigated if the fundamental principles for the administration of juvenile justice are put into practice.

The Beijing Rules and Riyadh Guidelines have declared the fundamental rules which should be applied to deal with the problem. India, being a signatory to all the conventions on the Rights of Child, is under legal and moral obligation to enact laws conforming to international standards. Articles 15(3), 21, 21(A), 22(1), 22(2), 23, 234, 37(e), 37(f), 45, 47 and 51A(k) of the Indian Constitution impose a primary responsibility on the state to ensure that all the needs of children are met and their basic human rights are fully protected.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act 2000 and the Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 are the laws to deal with juvenile delinquents and juveniles in need of the care and protection. The Fundamental Principles for Administration of Juvenile Justice, as elaborated in Justice Rules, 2007 include presumption of innocence, right to be heard, positive measures, principles of no harm, no maltreatment and principle of best interest. Unfortunately, the apathy of the law enforcement agencies and the law adjudication authorities have rendered these laws as non-existent.

To provide a child-friendly environment, the cases of ‘juveniles in conflict with law’ are to be adjudicated upon by the Juvenile Justice Board, to be constituted by the state government concerned in every district. Almost all Boards are functioning from the regular court premises, contrary to law.

Childhood is the age for play and personality development and not for facing prolonged trial in the court. The rule 13(6) (d), therefore, rightly prescribed that cases of juveniles should be disposed of by the Board within four months. It can be extended by two months in exceptional cases involving transnational criminality, large number of witnesses and inordinate delay in production of witnesses.

Except in serious crimes, delay in trial beyond six months should automatically lead to termination of the proceedings against the juvenile. Despite the clear mandate of law, lakhs of cases are pending in courts beyond six months. This is illegal and gross injustice to the children.

The state machinery is equally negligent in providing infrastructure and facilities for the juveniles. The Child Welfare Committees to be constituted as per the provisions of JJ Act 2000 and JJ Rules 2007 are not in place in all the states. The Children’s Home and Shelter Home with prescribed facilities are non-extent. The selection committee for social workers to be associated with the Juvenile Justice Boards and Child Welfare Committees under the chairmanship of a retired High Court judge has not been constituted in most states.

The state is required to put the apparatus in place to ensure proper adoption, foster care, sponsorship and rehabilitation of juveniles. The objective is to ensure social reintegration of every juvenile as a normal citizen. A juvenile is the responsibility of the state till he or she attains the age of 18 years. The After Care organisations are designed to prepare the juveniles who have attained adulthood, to rise on their feet.

Unfortunately, the After Care organisations and the Social Reintegration mechanism as envisaged in the JJ Act have not been provided adequately in any of the states. To protect the human rights of children, crimes against children have been separately defined under the Act. All these crimes are cognisable offences where police can register FIRs and arrest offenders without warrant. The police is ignorant and hardly any cognisance is taken under these provisions though the children are suffering atrocities including the exploitation of child labour in public view.

Any law is as good or bad as its enforcement. The Juvenile Justice Act 2000 is the best law and a complete code which anyone can imagine for the juveniles’ care and protection. Deplorably, these laws and rules are not implemented in letter and spirit.

The law enforcement agencies should be told that acting in violation of the law is unpardonable. They can be held liable for their negligence. The only saving grace for them till now is that victims of criminal negligence are poor children who have no spokesperson to raise the voice for them at appropriate forum.

The children’s rights need to be protected if the civilisation has to progress in the right direction. There is an imperative need for sensitising those who are given the responsibility of protecting the children’s rights.

The writer, a senior IPS officer, is Inspector-General of Police, Training, Haryana


Juvenile justice
A saga of negligence and apathy
by K.P. Singh

Children are the most vulnerable group in any population. They can be exploited, ill-treated and directed into undesirable channels by anti-social elements. In Legal Aid committee V. UOI, the Supreme Court observed, “children require the protective umbrella of society for better growth and development as they are not in a position to claim their entitlements.”

Tagged with:



Ravi Kant , Advocate Supreme Court of India

Just a few days ago five school girls died in a stampede in a Government school in Delhi. The reason may be a matter of discussion and investigation but it is very important that the basic minimum standards for safety need to be ensured in all schools across the country.

It is the administration which has the responsibility to keep a check on such schools which don’t adhere to the basic safety measures. All private schools need to be checked and those schools should be forced to ensure such standards. It is a national shame when young helpless children die due to the negligence of the school. It is a tragedy for the family and a shame for the administration.

In the present case the exit for the school was single and constricted.
The Supreme Court in May 2009 had given orders that the chief secretary should comply with all the guidelines laid down by the national building code of India in a span of one month of the order and ensure these standards. It is a fact that governments don’t care of such orders. If those guidelines had been ensured and complied with might be those children should have been alive today.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Lokeshwar Panta had said in the case related to the Kumbakonam Fire tragedy Avinash Mehrotra Vs Union of India (Writ Petition 483 of 2004)

35. In view of what has happened in Lord Krishna Middle School in District Kumbakonam and other incidents which have been enumerated in the preceding paragraphs, it has become imperative that each school must follow the bare minimum safety standards, in addition to the compliance of the National Building Code of India, 2005, in particular Part IV ¬ Fire & Life Safety and the Code of Practice of Fire Safety in Educational Institutions (IS 14435:1997) of the Bureau of Indian Standards. The said safety standards are enumerated here in below:


i. Provision of adequate capacity and numbers of fire extinguishers of ISI marks to be provided in eye-catching spots in each block of the school.

ii. First Aid kits and necessary medicines should be readily available in the school.

iii. Provision of water tank and separate piping from the tank with hose reel to the ground floor and first floor.

iv. Fire fighting training to all teachers and students from X to XII standards.

v. Fire Task Force in every school comprising of Head of the institution, two teachers / staff members and one member from the Fire and Rescue Department should be constituted. The Fire & Rescue Department member shall monitor and make fire safety plan and conduct inspections once in every three months.

vi. Display of emergency telephone numbers and list of persons to be contacted on the notice board and other prominent places.

vii. Mock drills to be conducted regularly. Fire alarm to be provided in each floor and for rural schools separate long bell arrangement in case of emergency.

viii. All old electrical wiring and equipment shall be replaced with ISI mark equipments and routine maintenance conducted by the School Management in consultation with the Fire and Rescue Department.

ix. No High Tension lines should run inside or in close proximity to the school. Steps must be taken to shift them if they are already there.

x. The Fire and Rescue Department shall frame guidelines with “DOS and DON’Ts’ for schools and issue a fitness certificate, which shall be renewed periodically.


i. The teachers along with other staff shall be trained to handle safety equipment, initiate emergency evacuations and protect their students in the event of fire and other emergencies by the Fire and Rescue Department.

ii. They shall also be trained in providing emergency first-aid treatment.

iii) There shall be a School Safety Advisory Committee and an Emergency Response Plan drafted by the Committee in approval and consultation with the concerned Fire & Rescue Department.

iv) Emergency Response Drills conducted at regular intervals to train the students as well as the school staff.

v) All schools to observe Fire Safety Day on 14th of April every year with awareness programs and fire safety drills in collaboration with the Fire and Rescue Department.


i. The school buildings shall preferably be a `A’ Class construction with brick / stone masonry walls with RCC roofing. Where it is not possible to provide RCC roofing only non- combustible fireproof heat resistance materials should be used.

ii. The nursery and elementary schools should be housed in single storied buildings and the maximum number of floors in school buildings shall be restricted to three including the ground floor.

iii. The School building shall be free from inflammable and toxic materials, which if necessary, should be stored away from the school building.

iv. The staircases, which act as exits or escape routes, shall adhere to provisions specified in the National Building Code of India 2005 to ensure quick evacuation of children.

v. The orientation of the buildings shall be in such a way that proper air circulation and lighting is available with open space all round the building as far as possible.

vi. Existing school buildings shall be provided with additional doors in the main entrances as well as the class rooms if required. The size of the main exit and classroom doors shall be enlarged if found inadequate.

vii. School buildings have to be insured against fire and natural calamities with Group Insurance of school pupils.

viii. Kitchen and other activities involving use of fire shall be carried out in a secure and safe location away from the main school building.

ix. All schools shall have water storage tanks.


i. Every School shall have a mandatory fire safety inspection by the Fire and Rescue Services Department followed by issuance of a `no objection certificate’ to the School as a mandatory requirement for granting permission for establishing or continuation of a School.

i. An Inspection Team consisting of experts like a Civil Engineer, a Health Officer, a Revenue Officer, a Psychologist, a Fire Officer, a local body officer and a development officer besides the educational authorities shall carry inspection and assessment of infrastructural facilities before the commencement of each academic year. The Team shall submit its Inspection Report to the concerned district Chief Educational Officer.

iii. The building plans for schools shall be prepared only by a Government certified engineer and the PWD Executive Engineer concerned should inspect the building and award a structural stability certificate. Stability Certificates shall be issued by the State or Central Government Engineers only and shall be mandatory for granting permission for establishing or continuation of a School.

iv. In every district, one Recognition Committee headed by a retired judge shall be constituted. Officials from Revenue Department, Public Works Department, Fire Service, Electricity Board, Health and Education Department, a reputed NGO shall be members. They shall visit the schools periodically or at least the erring institutions as listed by the Chief Education Officer.

v. Conditional recognition / approval shall never by resorted to for any school.

36. In this petition, we need not take any action contrary to government policy to fulfill the Constitution’s mandate. Union and State officials have already filed wide-ranging plans to improve school safety. Along with the National Building Code, a combination of the better parts of these plans would bring the nation’s schools to an adequate level of safety. States have also expressed enthusiasm for reform and some have asked this Court expressly for direction.

37. Many States have already begun implementation. The most forward thinking States have enacted and enforced the National Building Code in their schools. Often these States have also created, empowered and funded a state-wide emergency response office. The coordinated efforts and concentration of knowledge in these administrative units make States better able to prepare for emergencies, as much as to respond once the problem has started. For example, the State of Gujarat has established such an emergency management office. Having already settled building codes and other large issues, the State can focus on other aspects of emergency management. With the assistance of outside experts, Gujarat recently created a colouring book to teach children how to respond to emergencies. On a smaller scale, but no less vital, in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, administrators replaced all thatched roofs and allocated an additional Rs.500 lakhs to build pucca classrooms. Some States have counted their schools and know which require repairs; they provided these details in their affidavits along with detailed plans for improvement. We are encouraged by the agreement shared among States that safety must improve. Our order should provide additional stimulus for the general aims of the States’ already agreed policy.

38. In the end, we should need to do little but enforce existing laws and encourage States in their own well-intentioned safety programmes. However, in the years since the fire at the Lord Krishna Middle School, some States have moved slowly and safety standards have varied in quality across States. These delays and variations have subjected millions more school children to danger from fire, earthquakes and other causes, when simple enhancements could offer much greater protection. Articles 21 and 21-A of the Constitution require that India’s school children receive education in safe schools. In order to give effect to the provisions of the Constitution, we must ensure that India’s schools adhere to basic safety standards without further delay.

39. It is the fundamental right of each and every child to receive education free from fear of security and safety. The children cannot be compelled to receive education from an unsound and unsafe building.

40. In view of what happened in Lord Krishna Middle School in District Kumbakonam where 93 children were burnt alive and several similar incidences had happened in the past, therefore, it has become imperative to direct that safety measures as prescribed by the National Building Code of India, 2005 be implemented by all government and private schools functioning in our country.

We direct that:-

(i) Before granting recognition or affiliation, the concerned State Governments and Union Territories are directed to ensure that the buildings are safe and secured from every angle and they are constructed according to the safety norms incorporated in the National Building Code of India.

(ii) All existing government and private schools shall install fire extinguishing equipments within a period of six months.

(iii) The school buildings be kept free from inflammable and toxic material. If storage is inevitable, they should be stored safely.

(iv) Evaluation of structural aspect of the school may be carried out periodically. We direct that the concerned engineers and officials must strictly follow the National Building Code. The safety certificate be issued only after proper inspection. Dereliction in duty must attract immediate disciplinary action against the concerned officials.

(v) Necessary training be imparted to the staff and other officials of the school to use the fire extinguishing equipments.

41. The Education Secretaries of each State and Union Territories are directed to file an affidavit of compliance of this order within one month after installation of fire extinguishing equipments.

42. List this petition on 07.12.2009 to ensure compliance of this order.

In light of the above orders of the Court in which almost four months have gone by the Govt of NCT of Delhi did not care to implement the orders of the court and therefore a case of criminal negligence is made out against the Education Secretary and Chief Secretary. Until and unless such senior officials are not brought to book such tragedies will continue to happen. The Govt of NCT of Delhi should not be let off by paying simple ex gratia payment but they should be held accountable for criminal negligence and the Govt should pay a heavy compensation to the parents as it is the administration which is responsible for such an accident.



(i) The complaint relating to child rape cases shall be recorded promptly as well as accurately. The complaint can be filed by the victim or an eyewitness or anyone, including a representative of non-governmental organization, who has received information of the commission of the offence. The case should be taken as follows:

a) Officer not below the rank of SI and preferably lady police officer.

b) Recording should be verbatim

c) Person recording to be in civil dress

d) Recording should not be insisted in police station, it can be at the residence of the victim.

(ii) If the complainant is the child victim, then it is of vital importance that the reporting officer must ensure that the child victim is made comfortable before proceeding to record the complaint. This would help in ensuring accurate narration of the incident covering all relevant aspects of the case. If feasible, assistance of psychiatrist should be taken;

(iii) The Investigating Officer shall ensure that medical examination of the victim of sexual assault and the accused is done preferably within 24 hours in accordance with Cr. PC Sec. 164 A. Instruction be issued that the Chief Medical Officer ensures the examination of victim immediately on receiving request from I.O. The gynecologist, while examining the victim should ensure recording the history of incident;

(iv) Immediately after the registration of the case, the investigation team shall visit the scene of crime to secure whatever incriminating evidence is available there. If there are tell-tale signs of resistance by the victim or use of force by the accused those should be photographed;

(v) The Investigation Officer shall secure the clothes of the victim as well as the clothes of the accused, if arrested, and send them within 10 days for forensic analysis to find out whether there are traces of semen and also obtain report about the matching of blood group and if possible DNA profiling;

(vi) The forensic lab should analyze the evidences on priority basis and send report within couple of months;

(vii) The investigation of the case shall be taken up by an officer not below the rank of S.I. on priority basis and, as far as possible, investigation shall invariably be completed within 90 days of registration of the case. Periodical supervision should be done by senior officers to ensure proper and prompt investigation;

(viii) Wherever desirable, the statement of the victims u/s 164 Cr. PC shall be recorded expeditiously;

(ix) Identity of the victim and the family shall be kept secret and they must be ensured of protection. IOs / NGOs to exercise more caution of the issue.


i) Fast Track courts preferably presided over by a lady judge and trial to be held in camera;

ii) Atmosphere in the court should be child friendly;

iii) If possible, the recordings be done in video conferencing / in conducive manner so that victim is not subjected to close proximity of accused;

iv) Magistrate should commit case to session within 15 days after the filing of the charge sheet. rape cases (New Guidelines).doc

%d bloggers like this: