CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Monday directed the Puducherry administration to decide by Wednesday whether an FIR should be registered against Superintendent of Police A Subramanian on a woman constable’s sexual harassment complaint.
The court’s direction came while hearing a petition filed by the constable’s mother, seeking appropriate action against the SP over the complaint. The woman had alleged that Subramanian sexually harassed her while he was serving in Karaikal in 2024.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that “curiously enough” the Puducherry DGP and Home Secretary were yet to take a decision on whether an FIR should be registered against the officer.
The judge said the authorities’ reluctance appeared to stem from the fact that the accused was a Superintendent of Police. However, the government pleader appearing for the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary submitted that the officer did not enjoy any immunity.
“The DGP and the Home Secretary shall take a call on whether an FIR is to be registered or not and its decision shall be intimated to the court on Wednesday,” the judge said.
The court was also informed that a show-cause notice had been issued to the officer, described in the proceedings as the delinquent officer, seeking his response.
Subramanian was placed under suspension on September 24, following criticism from the court over the administration’s handling of the complaint.
The petition was filed after the woman constable allegedly attempted suicide by consuming chemicals.
During the previous hearing, Justice Lakshminarayanan had criticised the Puducherry administration for failing to act with the urgency expected after the court had given it a “nudge”.
“Alas, it was not to be,” the judge had observed.
Pulling up the Union Territory administration for failing to act on the complaints and reports of the Internal Complaints Committee, the court had said the manner in which the papers were being processed gave an indication that “the guilty are sought to be protected by the administration”.
The judge also observed that Article 14 of the Constitution not only guarantees equality before the law but also equal protection of the law.
He had further expressed hope that the Puducherry government would “wake from its Kumbakarna attitude” and decide to play the role of Lord Rama that it claims to represent.
