“I don’t want to become another Ishrat Jahan (a 19-year-old woman killed in a police encounter in Gujarat in 2004). There is an attempt to brand me as a terrorist and kill me in a fake encounter. I am being stalked. Every movement of mine is being monitored. My phones are being tapped. CCTV cameras have been fixed near my house to keep a watch on me. I fear for my life. Please save me,” wailed a frail looking woman before the Madras High Court recently.
Chief Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice M. Sundar, the court staff and a group of lawyers were taken aback when Chitra Nehru (name changed) from Choolaimedu here began addressing the judges just seconds before they were about to retire to their chambers after winding up the court proceedings. Fluent in English and claiming to be hailing from a wealthy and respectable family, the spinster accused a business conglomerate of harassing her due to a private dispute between them.
Moved by the fervent appeal made by the woman, the judges spent about 20 minutes to go through a written complaint submitted by her. They also patiently listened to her as she narrated the alleged mental torture to which she was being reportedly subject to. She alleged that the State machinery was being misused to invade into her right to privacy and that Justice C.T. Selvam had in April ordered removal of a CCTV camera fixed near her house.
“Even today, I did not come to the court at 10.30 a.m. to mention the matter before you. I did not come at 1.30 p.m. or even at 2.15p.m. I chose to come at 4.45 p.m. only because no one would expect me to come here at this time. The Supreme Court has held right to privacy as a fundamental right but in this country, the judiciary is bypassed when it comes to keeping surveillance over an individual,” she told the judges with moist eyes and sought protection for her life.
When the Chief Justice wanted to know if any police case was pending against her, the woman said: “Nothing to my knowledge.”
Taken as suo motu
Later, the judges ordered conversion of her complaint into a suo motu writ petition with the Director General of Police and Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, as respondents to the case and went on to dictate their order which read: “The petitioner has stated that she has been harassed and kept under surveillance by some influential persons for reasons entirely personal. From her complaint, it appears that she has been threatened. She fears that she will be framed as a terrorist.
“There can be no question of the petitioner being framed as a terrorist, when, according to her, there is not even any complaint against her. The telephone service providers shall not tap any phone belonging to the petitioner and the police authorities shall ensure that the petitioner is not stalked or harassed in any manner whatsoever. Writ petition is, accordingly, closed.” Satisfied with the court order, the woman walked out saying: “I am deeply grateful. Thank you very much.”
