‘Cash-for-sex scandal': Punjab and Haryana HC disposes of PIL, asks petitioner to approach magistrate

Indian Express

2 days ago

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday disposed of a public interest litigation seeking forensic analysis of audio clips allegedly involving a senior IPS officer in an alleged cash-for-sex scandal, directing the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A division bench headed by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, with Justice Sanjiv Berry, passed the order during resumed hearing of the matter. The case had earlier come up on May 5, when a bench comprising Chief Justice Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel had directed the State of Punjab to file its response.
The petitioner, Supreme Court Advocate Nikhil Saraf, represented by Advocate Amit Sharma, had sought an independent forensic examination of two viral audio recordings and the disclosure of the name of the officer allegedly referred to by a woman constable during her arrest under the NDPS Act.
Appearing for the State of Punjab and the Director General of Police, Senior Advocate Salil Sabhlok questioned the maintainability of the petition. He submitted that the audio clips were 'inaudible, doctored and unverified,' and argued that the petition was motivated, lacked genuine public interest, and had been filed without exhausting available remedies. He also submitted that the complaint against the officer was still pending before the DGP.
In response, Advocate Amit Sharma argued that the affidavit filed by the State 'appeared to have been submitted without even reading the petition.' He submitted that the State had failed to address the material placed on record, including evidence of systemic failures, prior judicial findings of breakdowns in criminal enforcement, and continued institutional inaction despite specific court directions.
'This petition is not about any single officer,' Sharma told the bench. 'It brings to light a larger pattern of silence, complicity, and selective protection.'
He referred the court to several annexures, including High Court orders documenting delayed FIRs in rape and murder cases, instances of non-compliance with court directions, and the imposition of ₹1 lakh costs on the officer now at the centre of the present petition. Sharma also reminded the bench that in another case, the same DGP had submitted that a gangster's interview had not taken place in Punjab, a claim later contradicted by official records, prompting the court to seek an affidavit in that matter as well.
He further submitted that the petitioner had approached multiple statutory bodies, including the DGP, the Chief Minister's Office, the State Women's Commission, and the Police Complaints Authority, but none had taken action. 'If the State believes the audio recordings are false or inaudible, the remedy lies in forensic analysis, not institutional denial,' Sharma argued.
After hearing both sides, the bench disposed of the PIL with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned under appropriate provisions of BNSS. It also observed that if the Magistrate failed to act, the petitioner would be at liberty to return to the High Court.