In a significant development, the Madhya Pradesh High Court issued a show-cause notice to the Police Commissioner of Indore over alleged non-compliance with its directives in a case involving a teacher accused of forcing girl students to undress under the pretext of searching for a missing mobile phone. The case, filed as WP No. 23250 of 2024 by Chinmay Mishra, raised critical questions about the investigation’s adequacy and adherence to child protection laws.
Background of the Case
The FIR (No. 280/2024) registered on August 15, 2024, under Sections 76 and 79 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, accuses a teacher of subjecting girl students to a humiliating search for a mobile phone.
The petitioner contended that the actions amounted to a violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, which was inexplicably not invoked during the investigation. Earlier, on August 30, 2024, the High Court directed the Police Commissioner to review the case in light of the POCSO Act and submit a detailed report within a month. However, this directive was allegedly ignored, prompting judicial scrutiny.
Legal Issues
1. Non-Application of the POCSO Act, 2012:
– Whether the actions of the accused teacher, involving coercion of minor girls to undress, constituted offenses under the POCSO Act, 2012, specifically under provisions addressing sexual harassment and abuse.
2. Failure to Comply with Court Orders:
– Whether the Indore Police Commissioner’s failure to examine the case under the POCSO Act and submit a compliance report amounted to contempt of court.
3. Safeguarding Children’s Rights:
– Whether the investigative and procedural lapses undermined statutory protections accorded to children under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.
Court Observations
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari expressed serious dissatisfaction over the failure of the police to follow its directives and apply relevant child protection laws. The court made the following critical observations:
– Negligence in Investigative Process:
The court stated, “The failure to apply relevant legal provisions, especially in cases involving the protection of minors, reflects serious lapses in the investigative process. Such negligence undermines justice and will not be tolerated.”
– Importance of the POCSO Act:
It emphasized that the POCSO Act was specifically enacted to address offenses against minors and that overlooking its applicability in such cases severely compromises the victims’ rights.
– Accountability of Law Enforcement:
The court questioned the Police Commissioner’s inaction, noting, “Non-compliance with judicial orders not only undermines the rule of law but also erodes public trust in law enforcement.”
Decisions of the Court
1. Issuance of Show-Cause Notice:
The court issued a show-cause notice to the Police Commissioner, requiring him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for failing to comply with the court’s earlier order. It directed the Commissioner to:
– Personally appear before the court on November 25, 2024.
– Submit an affidavit detailing the actions taken to investigate the case under the POCSO Act.
2. Submission of Guidelines:
The court granted permission to Advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar, counsel for the petitioner, to place on record a set of proposed guidelines for the effective application of child protection laws in such cases.
3. Strict Adherence to Judicial Orders:
The bench reiterated the importance of adhering to judicial orders and ensuring that investigations involving minors are conducted with the utmost diligence and sensitivity.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for November 25, 2024, and indicated that any further lapses could result in severe consequences, including contempt proceedings against the Police Commissioner.
