Prison official suspended for public remarks on Govindachamy's jailbreak
The disciplinary action comes even as multi-pronged investigations are under way into the high-profile security breach that caught the law enforcement and prisons administration off-guard.
Deputy Inspector General of Prisons (South Zone) Dinesh B. has ordered the immediate suspension of Abdul Sattar A., Deputy Prison Officer of Kottarakara Special Sub-Jail, pending inquiry, over his recent conduct and remarks made on a news channel. The statements in question relate to the escape by Govindachamy on Friday.
According to the suspension order, Mr. Sattar allegedly made alarming claims, including that the convict had threatened to jump the jail and vowed to harm the officer's family if he escaped. He further claimed that stolen gold linked to the inmate had been hidden in graveyards in Coimbatore, and that these were being handled by certain people who purportedly backed Govindachamy in his case.
Claiming that Govindachamy had harassed numerous women prior to his arrest, Mr. Sattar went on to express a desire that the convict should be executed, even claiming that he would be willing to serve as the executioner if needed.
The order, which also stated that Mr. Sattar has previously been involved in several instances of misconduct, held that the condemnable statements have tarnished the department's image and violated Rule 62 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules as well as a circular issued by the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services. The department also emphasised that such conduct undermines public trust and professionalism expected of the prison staff.
Probe instituted
Three prison officers of the Kannur Central Prison had been suspended in the immediate aftermath of the jailbreak, with the government also instituting a special inquiry led by former Kerala High Court judge C.N. Ramachandran Nair and former State Police Chief Jacob Punnoose. The Opposition has raised allegations of security lapses and systemic negligence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Top Court To Examine High Court's Order On Girl's ' Sambandh ' Remark In Sexual Assault Case
New Delhi: The Supreme Court today agreed to examine the controversial Delhi High Court order acquitting a 22-year-old man in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences case, saying use of the words 'sambandh banaya' (established physical relationship) in a minor's statement is not sufficient to establish an offence of sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or Section 376 IPC. The top court today issued notice on the plea against the High Court order. The Delhi High Court order had acquitted the man on the grounds that the phrase "sambandh" and "physical relation" cannot be interpreted as 'sexual intercourse'. A Special Leave Petition has been filed against the Delhi High Court's order acquitting a 22-year-old man accused of raping a 14-year-old. A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice AG Masih issued notice in a petition filed by NGO 'Just Rights for Children Alliance', returnable in four weeks. Additional Solicitor General Archana Dave, appearing for the Delhi Police, informed the top court today that they support the petitioner's case and will file an appeal against the acquittal. The trial court had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment by interpreting the phrase "sambandh" and "physical relation" to imply sexual intercourse and thereby sexual assault, given that the complainant was a minor and there was a considerable age difference between the two. In the December 2024 order, the high court asserted that the leap from physical relations or 'sambandh' to sexual assault and then to penetrative sexual assault must be established by evidence and cannot be deduced as an inference. "The mere fact that the survivor is below 18 years cannot lead to a conclusion that there was penetrative sexual assault. The survivor, in fact, used the phrase 'physical relations', but there is no clarity as to what she meant by using the said phrase," the court said in the judgement passed on December 23. Even the use of the words 'sambandh banaya' is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 IPC. Though consent would not matter if the girl is a minor under the POCSO Act, the phrase 'physical relations' cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse, let alone sexual assault, the court held. The high court said the benefit of doubt ought to be in favour of the accused and, therefore, ruled, the trial court's judgment completely lacks any reasoning and also does not reveal or support any rationale for the conviction. The complaint in this case was lodged in March 2017 by the girl's mother, alleging that her 14-year-old daughter had been lured and kidnapped from her home by an unknown person. The minor was found in Faridabad along with the accused, who was arrested and subsequently convicted for the offence of rape under IPC and penetrative sexual assault under POCSO in December 2023 and later awarded imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
The Hindu
8 hours ago
- The Hindu
Why did Justice Varma submit to in-house inquiry if it was contrary to Constitution, Supreme Court asks
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 28, 2025) questioned High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma's choice to submit to an in-house inquiry procedure into an allegation of 'burnt cash' found at his official residential premises in Delhi, despite finding the procedure to be 'completely contrary to the Constitutional scheme'. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih asked whether he was at the time looking for a favourable outcome. Supreme Court hearing on Justice Varma's petition updates: SC asks Sibal to place on record the fact-finding committee report, adjourns case to July 30 The query came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal complained that the action taken by the Supreme Court at the time, including release of sensitive visual and audio materials showing 'burnt currency', 'convicted' Justice Varma in the public eye. 'There was a public furore, media interactions named the judge, accusations were levelled against the judge and the findings of the inquiry committee found its way into the public domain. He was convicted in the public eye from day one,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal said the process of removal of a judge was covered under Article 124(4) of the Constitution. The inquiry had to be done under the Judges Inquiry Act. The in-house procedure was meant to 'enhance' the moral vigour of the judiciary and depicted zero tolerance to judicial misconduct. 'Violation of Article 121' The senior counsel said the outing of sensitive material regarding a sitting High Court judge and very public discussions on his conduct violated the bar under Article 121 of the Constitution. 'Article 121 restricts discussions even in the Parliament on a sitting judge unless there is evidence of proven misconduct against him… Here, he was already 'convicted' in the public eye. The in-house inquiry procedure was devised to enhance the moral authority of the judiciary. The conduct of the in-house inquiry and its report, now in the public domain, hardly meet that objective,' Mr. Sibal argued. Mr. Sibal challenged the inquiry committee's finding of misbehaviour against Justice Varma. 'If cash is found in an outhouse, what is the behaviour of the judge to do with it… There is no 'behaviour' or 'misbehaviour' involved. They have to prove the cash belonged to him. They never found that… There could never have been a recommendation for my [read Justice Varma's] removal,' Mr. Sibal argued. 'Political overtones' The counsel said the issue of 'removal' of the judge has taken on political overtones. 'But removal is also a political procedure,' Justice Datta observed. 'Yes, inside the Parliament, not outside,' Mr. Sibal responded. 'You could have raised these points immediately, without submitting to the committee's jurisdiction… why did you not?' Justice Datta asked. Mr. Sibal contended that the decision of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna (now retired) in May to forward the committee report and recommendation for the removal of Justice Varma was 'illegal'. 'Why do you think sending it to the President, who is the appointing authority of the judge, illegal? And what is wrong in sending it to the Prime Minister? He is the leader of the Council of Ministers. His advice is taken at the time of appointment of judges. Sending it to the President or the Prime Minister does not mean the Chief Justice is trying to impress or persuade the House to accept his point of view,' Justice Datta responded. The court listed the case on July 30, directing Mr. Sibal to place the inquiry committee's report on record.
India Today
8 hours ago
- India Today
Not terrorist: Mother of arrested Jagan Reddy's party MP seeks fair jail treatment
The mother of YSR Congress Party MP and remand prisoner Mithun Reddy, made an emotional appeal on Monday after visiting her son at the Rajahmundry Central Jail, where he is currently lodged in connection with the high-profile Andhra Pradesh liquor by her daughter Shakti Reddy and son-in-law Akhil Reddy, Swarnalatha met Mithun during the scheduled mulakath (prison visit). Emerging from the jail premises, she broke down while speaking to son is holding up bravely, and I pray to God to give him strength," she said tearfully. 'He is still an accused, not a convicted criminal. It pains me to see him being treated like a terrorist.' Raising concerns over the prison conditions, she urged jail authorities to ensure that Mithun is treated with dignity. 'The jail staff must treat him with basic dignity and provide him with appropriate facilities,' she Reddy remains in judicial custody as investigations into the alleged multi-crore liquor scam is accused of causing a severe loss to the exchequer and undue use of power. According to the probe, he is considered one of the core conspirators. The allegations include the use of kickbacks to fund the 2024 elections, with the transcript stating, "him along with several been accused of using kickbacks to fund the 2024 elections."Charges have been filed under several sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The arrest followed the rejection of his bail pleas by the High Court and Supreme Court.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Andhra Pradesh
