Madras High Court summons Greater Chennai City Commissioner of Police
Justice P. Velmurugan ordered that the Commissioner of Police must appear on June 9, and clarify why no action was taken on the complaint even after the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes (NCSC) had forwarded it to the Commissionerate on December 26 last year, and had called for a report on the action taken within 15 days.
The order was passed on a writ petition filed by engineering degree-holder V. Vanamalai of Nanguneri in Tirunelveli district. The petitioner said he owned a flat at Vinoth Viruksha Apartments at Nolambur in Chennai. He had a dispute regarding the funds of the flat owners' welfare association.
The petitioner, along with another flat owner, had lodged a criminal complaint alleging misappropriation of ₹1.25 crore, and the matter was under investigation by the Central Crime Branch. Irked over it, one of the flat owners had used abusive language against the petitioner after coming to know that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community, the petitioner claimed.
The petitioner also complained that he was insulted directly and indirectly in the WhatsApp group used by the flat owners, and claimed that it was a caste-based atrocity. He lodged an online complaint with the Inspector of the Nolambur police station on November 4, 2024, and subsequently made a complaint to the NCSC on December 9, 2024.
The NCSC forwarded the complaint to the Commissioner of Police, and called for a report within 15 days. The Commission's communication was marked to the petitioner too. However, till date, the police had not even conducted an inquiry regarding the complaint, the petitioner said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Pakistan court orders probe into online blasphemy spike
A Pakistan court ordered a government probe on Tuesday (July 15, 2025) into allegations that young people are being entrapped in online blasphemy cases, following appeals from hundreds of families. There has been a spike in cases of mostly young men being arrested for committing blasphemy in WhatsApp groups since 2022. Rights groups and police have said that many are brought to trial by private law firms, who use volunteers to scour the internet for offenders. "The government will constitute a commission within a 30-day timeframe," said Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan at Islamabad High Court, adding that the commission is required to submit its findings within four months. Blasphemy is an incendiary charge in Muslim-majority Pakistan punishable by death, and even unsubstantiated accusations can incite public outrage, lead to lynchings and to families being shunned by society. A report published by the government-run National Commission for Human Rights in October last year said there were 767 people, mostly young men, in jail awaiting trial over blasphemy allegations. "This is a huge ray of hope and it's the first time that the families have felt heard," said lawyer Imaan Mazari, who represents the families of arrested men and women, of the court order. "Youngsters have been falsely roped into cases of such a sensitive nature that the stigma will last forever even if they are acquitted," she added. A 2024 report by Punjab police into the sudden spike in cases, that was leaked to the media, found that "a suspicious gang was trapping youth in blasphemy cases" and may be motivated by financial gain. The Legal Commission on Blasphemy Pakistan (LCBP) is the most active of lawyers groups prosecuting young men in Pakistan. Sheraz Ahmad Farooqi, one of the group's leaders, told AFP in October that "God has chosen them for this noble cause". In recent years, several youngsters have been convicted and handed death sentences, although no execution has ever been carried out for blasphemy in Pakistan. "We will fully support the probe commission and are confident that our voices will finally be listened to, our concerns will be heard, and the truth will come out," the relative of one of the accused, who asked not to be named because of the backlash, said.
Economic Times
29 minutes ago
- Economic Times
A law to settle disputes, if neglectful to power, can sustain the inequalities it seeks to remedy
And don't you forget that you're being recorded On Monday, the Supreme Court in 'Vibhor Garg v. Neha' ruled that a husband's secretly-recorded phone calls with his wife are admissible evidence in a divorce litigation. Justice B V Nagarathna, writing for a 2-judge bench, invoked the exception under Section 122, Indian Evidence Act, which permits disclosure of communication between spouses in marital suits. The court reasoned that such recordings advance the constitutional right to a fair trial, and can override marital privacy. With that single move, the court reiterated a boundary that has long kept domestic surveillance at least technically suspect. It is now law that a spouse may listen in first and justify later, so long as the marriage is on the rocks. The judgment demands close scrutiny, as it fails to consider the power imbalances underlying privacy breaches. Snooping as coercive control: The court treats clandestine recordings as a mere effect of marital breakdown, not a cause. However, this reasoning ignores the phenomenon of coercive control. Call-recording apps installed without consent, insistence on shared passwords and unlocked phones, and forced access to WhatsApp chats and UPI SMS alerts are scenarios Indian counsellors routinely hear from survivors of domestic abuse, primarily women. Most times, surveillance precedes, and often precipitates, marital discord. Women's rights activists and family lawyers reiterate that domestic surveillance is an intrusive and all-consuming method of gendered domination. By holding that secret clips, however obtained, are presumptively admissible, the judgment incentivises spying - especially for the spouse who enjoys economic leverage or technological literacy. Courts could have insisted on a proportionality filter: admit only material that could not be gathered by less-intrusive means, and weigh whether the act of snooping itself constituted a form of abuse. Instead, the ruling raises the stakes for many wives already monitored by their husbands or in-laws, and sharpens the pressure to 'behave' under watch. Sanctity v. privacy: To justify this outcome, the bench reaches back to the Victorian rationale of Section 122. Shielding privileged communication between spouses protects the 'sanctity of marriage'. The court now says that once marital harmony is eroded, so must the privilege; privacy plays no independent role. This reasoning justifies a 200-year-old outdated rationale, instead of subjecting it to the latest constitutional tests of privacy. Since the authoritative 9-judge bench 2017 judgment in the 'Justice K S Puttaswamy' case, informational privacy has been declared a part of Article 21 of the Constitution. Every statutory limit on this must pass a proportionality test. State infringement of privacy must be: Be proportionate to the need for such interference. Have procedural guarantees against abuse of power. The spirit of Puttaswamy ideally should be followed here, even when the breach is by a private party. A blanket licence for covert recordings, which ignores the means of recording and their centrality to the litigation at hand, would fail the proportionality test's requirement of necessity and minimal court's refusal to run Section 122 through the 'Puttaswamy filter' echoes the logic that once kept marital rape outside the penal code. Marriage was said to confer perpetual consent to sexual acts between spouses. For several decades, this rationale was unquestioningly accepted as legitimate. Constitutional adjudication should do the opposite in all these cases - interrogate inherited rationales, not inherit them rights activists have long argued that privacy cannot shield domestic violence. The state should step into the home when there's abuse. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is rooted in that insight. Yet, women's rights also insist that intrusions on privacy be evaluated through the lens of power and vulnerability.'Vibhor Garg' ignores this safeguard. It allows the spouse with the tech tools to trample upon privacy, even when the surveillance itself may be a form of abuse. A rights-sensitive approach should perhaps ask: was the recording coerced? Was it a tool of clandestine control? Admitting such evidence without that inquiry risks turning the courtroom into an extension of the abusive household, where such control is legitimised through Supreme Court has shown that it can balance public interest with personal liberty. In 'Selvi v. State of Karnataka' (2010), it permitted narco-analysis only when the accused gives consent and strict procedural safeguards are observed. In 'Vibhor Garg', however, it reads the Evidence Act mechanically and only weighs privacy against marital far richer constitutional values of autonomy, dignity and equality hardly make an appearance. The exception in Section 122 should be subjected to a proportionality inquiry. Until then, 'Vibhor Garg' stands as a cautionary tale: a law framed to settle disputes, if inattentive to power, can perpetuate the very inequalities it seeks to remedy. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Rumblings at the top of Ola Electric The hybrid vs. EV rivalry: Why Maruti and Mahindra pull in different directions. What's best? How Safexpress bootstrapped its way to build India's largest PTL Express business Zee promoters have a new challenge to navigate. And it's not about funding or Sebi probe. Newton vs. industry: Inside new norms that want your car to be more fuel-efficient Stock Radar: UltraTech Cements hit a fresh record high in July; what should investors do – book profits or buy the dip? F&O Radar | Deploy Bear Put Spread in Nifty to gain from index correction Weekly Top Picks: These stocks scored 10 on 10 on Stock Reports Plus
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Man held for communally sensitive post on WA
Mangaluru: Surathkal police arrested a man for allegedly spreading communally sensitive and false messages about a local resident across multiple WhatsApp groups. The accused has been identified as Ram Prasad alias Pocha,42, a resident of Kulai, Mangaluru. Mangaluru City police commissioner Sudheer Kumar Reddy CH said a complaint was filed by Rajesh, a resident of Kulai. In his complaint, he alleged that malicious and fabricated messages targeting him were being circulated on social media with the intent to incite communal hatred. The accused allegedly spread claims that the complainant was involved in the religious conversion of over 20 Hindu women, selling obscene content, and converting female employees at his office. Further, it was alleged that preperations were on to get a 24-year-old Hindu married to the complainant's brother, and that she stopped following Hindu customs like applying vermilion or visiting temples, and instead began attending church prayers regularly. Based on the complaint, a case was registered at the Surathkal police station on July 13 under Sections 352, 353(1), and 353(2) of the BNS. A police team led by Surathkal inspector Pramod Kumar and sub-inspector Raghunath Naik, along with HC Annappa Vandse, traced and arrested Ram Prasad on Monday. During interrogation, the accused is said to have confessed to the offence. He was produced before the II JMFC court in Mangaluru, which remanded him in judicial custody. Another accused in the case, Lokesh Kodikere, was already arrested in an unrelated case registered at Padubidri police station, and is currently lodged in Udupi District Jail, Hiriyadka. He will be produced before the court through a body warrant, police said.
