The Madras High Court on Thursday ordered that the report to be submitted by former IAS officer R. Santhanam, appointed by the Madurai Kamaraj University to probe into allegations that a woman faculty member of a private college in Virudhunagar district attempted to lure students for fulfilling the sexual desires of some unnamed powerful men, should not be made public without the court’s nod.
A Division Bench of Justices V. Parthiban and P.D. Audikesavalu passed the interim order on a public interest litigation petition filed by D. Ganesan, the State coordinator of Revolutionary Students Youth Front-Tamil Nadu, who claimed that the constitution of the one-man enquiry committee was per se illegal and that any report submitted by it would have a bearing on the police investigation.
Arguing the case, the petitioner’s counsel Balan Haridas contended that neither the Governor, in his capacity as the Chancellor of the university, nor the Vice-Chancellor had the authority to constitute such an enquiry committee for a parallel probe when the issue was already being investigated by the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).
However, the counsel for the university pointed out that the enquiry committee was actually constituted by the Vice Chancellor of the varsity, with the approval of the Chancellor, as contemplated under Section 12(4)(a) of the Madurai Kamaraj University Act of 1965, and therefore, there was no irregularity in its constitution.
Section 12(4)(a) stated: “In any emergency which in the opinion of the vice-chancellor requires that immediate action should be taken, he may take such action with the sanction of the Chancellor or the Pro Chancellor, as the case may be, and shall as soon as may be thereafter report his action to the officer or authority who or which would have ordinarily dealt with the matter.”
‘Similar case dismissed’
On his part, Government Pleader T.N. Rajagopalan contended that the Madurai Bench of the High Court had dismissed a similar case questioning the competence of the Governor to constitute an enquiry committee. He, however, could not produce a copy of that order, and hence, the judges adjourned the present case to June 5 for a hearing it in detail.
In the meantime, if Mr. Santhanam happened to submit his report, it should be kept in a sealed cover and not made public, the judges ordered. The order was passed since the petitioner’s counsel vehemently contended that the very purpose of filing the present case would be lost if the report was made public, thereby derailing the criminal investigation.
In an affidavit, filed through his counsel on record S. Jim Raj Milton, the petitioner had also sought for a direction to constitute a special investigation team, led by a gender-sensitive police officer not below the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police, to investigate the case under the supervision of the High Court.
