Chennai, Feb 12: A 43-year-old private school teacher was arrested on the charges of sexually assaulting a Class 9 boy in Ashok Nagar, Chennai.

The accused, identified as Sudhakar (43), was a Tamil teacher at the school.

He was arrested after a case was registered against him under three sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The incident came to light when the boy developed health complications.

Concerned about the boy’s condition, his parents enquired, and the child alleged that Sudhakar had sexually harassed him.

Due to an infection, the boy was admitted to Royapettah Government Hospital for treatment. Following a complaint by the parents, the K.K. Nagar police initially registered a case and launched an investigation.

The case was later transferred to the Saidapet All-Women Police Station.

Meanwhile, the school administration announced that Sudhakar had been dismissed.

It may be recalled that a few days before a 13-year-old girl from a government school in Bargur, Krishnagiri district, Tamil Nadu, had accused three of her teachers of rape.

The incident occurred in the first week of January and came to light only on February 3, when schoolteachers visited the girl’s home to investigate her prolonged absence from school.

Tamil Nadu opposition leader and AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami (EPS) expressed shock over the incident.

In a social media post, he criticised the DMK government for “failing” to ensure students’ safety in government schools and called upon Chief Minister M. K. Stalin to take full responsibility for the incident.

BJP Tamil Nadu Chief K. Annamalai condemned the incident and said sexual assault on women and girls had become a horrifying reality in Tamil Nadu.

New Delhi, Feb 11: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to DGPs of states to take immediate action in lynching and mob violence cases in accordance with the directions of the apex court and added that the directions in the Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India case were binding on all authorities across India.

A Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.Vinod Chandran opined that sitting in the national Capital, it cannot monitor incidents in different areas of different states across the country.

“Sitting in Delhi, we cannot monitor incidents in different areas of the country and in our view such micromanagement would not be feasible,” said the Justice Gavai-led Bench.

It added that the directions laid down by the top court in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla vs. Union of India, are binding on all authorities across the country under Article 141 of the Constitution.

In its 2018 judgment in the Poonawalla case, the Supreme Court had directed designation of nodal officer in each district for taking measures to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching.

“The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned states shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads,” it had ordered.

In its order, the Justice Gavai-led Bench stated that an aggrieved person can always seek remedy in accordance with the law, clarifying that the apex court cannot lay down any uniform criteria for the grant of compensation to the victims of mob lynching incidents since the quantum of compensation ought to be decided on a case to case basis.

Further, the apex court refused to examine the validity of cow protection laws introduced in several states, suggesting the litigants to approach the jurisdictional High Court.

“It will be appropriate that persons who are aggrieved approach jurisdictional High Courts to challenge the vires of the legislations/notifications,” the SC said.

During the course of hearing, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, the second-highest law officer of the Centre, submitted that mob lynching is a distinct offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and if there is any violation, the law will take its own course.

In an earlier hearing, the top court had pulled up the state governments of Assam, Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Maharashtra, and Bihar for not filing their counter-affidavits.

“We clarify that in the event counter affidavits are not filed by the above-mentioned states, the Chief Secretaries of the said states shall remain personally present in the court on the next date of hearing to show cause as to why an action should not be taken against them for non-compliance of the orders of the court,” it had said in an order passed on November 5, 2024.

Earlier in April last year, the apex court had granted six weeks to various state governments to file their reply detailing the action taken in cases of lynchings and mob violence.

“It was expected of the state governments to at least respond and give details as to what action has been taken in respect of the said instances (of lynchings and mob violence). We, therefore, grant six weeks’ time to all the state governments – who have not yet filed their affidavits – to file their counter-reply and give an explanation as to what action has been taken by the states in respect of incidents mentioned in the writ petition or interlocutory applications,” the SC had said.

In July 2023, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Centre and the Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Odisha, and Maharashtra governments. Later, all state governments were added as parties in the PIL on an application moved by Islamic clerics’ organisation Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind. The plea prayed for a minimum uniform compensation to be determined by the court that should be granted to the victims or their families in addition to the amount determined by the authorities.

“In most cases, minimal action of merely registering FIRs is the only thing that is done by the authorities which seems to be more of a formality than any genuine initiation of the criminal machinery,” the plea said.

Kutch: The Bhuj Sessions Court has finally delivered its verdict in a 40-year-old case of police misconduct involving former Kutch Superintendent of Police (SP) Kuldeep Sharma. The case, which dates back to 1984, involved a complaint filed by late Congress leader Mandhara Abdullah Haji Ibrahim, also known as Ibhala Seth, alleging that Sharma had verbally abused, humiliated, and physically assaulted him in the police office.

After a lengthy legal battle spanning four decades, the court found Kuldeep Sharma and fellow officer Girish Vasavada guilty. Both were sentenced to three months of imprisonment and a fine. Meanwhile, two other co-accused officers, BN Chauhan and PSI Bishnoi, passed away during the prolonged legal proceedings. Another accused, Girish Vasavada, was declared innocent by the court.

In 1984, Congress leader Mandhara Abdullah Haji Ibrahim had visited the SP office in Kutch along with several prominent political leaders, including then MLA Kharashankar Joshi, Mandvi MLA Jaykumar Sanghvi, Gabhubha Jadeja, and Shankar Govindji Joshi. They were there to discuss a case registered in Naliya when a heated argument broke out.

It was alleged that then-SP Kuldeep Sharma insulted, abused, and later called his fellow officers to physically assault Ibhala Seth. As a result, he sustained injuries. The incident led to an immediate response from advocate MB Sardar, who was part of the delegation. He filed a complaint against Sharma and four other officers in the Chief Judicial Court of Bhuj.

The case dragged on for decades, with multiple delays and legal hurdles. Over the years, several legal representatives took over the case. In 2020, following the demise of complainant’s lawyer MB Sardar, advocate RS Gadhvi took over as the main counsel. He ensured that the case progressed towards its final hearing.

During the proceedings, the court considered multiple testimonies and evidence. Finally, on January 28, 2025, the final hearing was concluded, and the verdict was pronounced on February 10, 2025—a staggering 40 years after the initial complaint was filed.

Following the court’s ruling, Iqbal Mandhara, son of the late complainant, expressed his satisfaction with the verdict. Standing outside the Bhuj court premises, he celebrated by distributing sweets to supporters.

Speaking to the media, Iqbal Mandhara said, “Justice delayed is justice denied, but we are happy that, after 40 years, the truth has been acknowledged. My father fought for justice, and today, we finally see a verdict that holds those responsible accountable.”

Advocates representing Kuldeep Sharma and the other accused argued that the prosecution had failed to provide substantial evidence. However, the court ruled that public officials are not exempt from legal scrutiny and must be held accountable, regardless of their position.