The Supreme Court of India has made an important decision about claims against police officers in Kerala. This case involved a woman named Anjali Nair, who accused several police officers of sexual assault, raising important questions about the rules and protections for public workers.
Anjali Nair said she was sexually assaulted by three police officers in 2022. The incidents reportedly happened in January and August of that year. She complained to the police, but an initial report in October 2022 said her claims were not true.
Initial Complaints and Reports: After her complaints were dismissed, Anjali Nair took more action in September 2024. She asked the local police and the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Ponnani to officially record her complaint.
High Court Proceedings: The Single Judge of the High Court initially agreed with Anjali Nair, deciding that the alleged crimes did not need the special rules meant for actions done as part of official duties. This decision was later changed by a Division Bench, which stressed the importance of following the correct process and getting a report from higher officers.
Main Legal Questions: The Supreme Court looked at whether the special rules under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) applied, and if the Single Judge went beyond their authority.
Decision: The Court decided that the Single Judge had overstepped by interpreting the law without properly challenging the JMFC's order. It also clarified that the steps, including getting reports from higher officers, must be followed in such cases.
Advice for Magistrates: The Court gave advice on when Section 175(4) should be used, stressing the need for careful thought about whether the alleged acts were done during official duties.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench's decision, reinforcing the need to follow the rules in cases involving public workers. Anjali Nair was advised to continue her case with the JMFC, making sure her application is backed by a sworn statement as required by law. This decision shows the importance of balancing protection for public workers from false claims and ensuring they are held responsible for wrongdoing.
