Madras high court extends status quo in sexual harassment case against cop
Chennai: Taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the parties including the complainant, the Madras high court has extended the order of maintenance of status quo in the matter relating to an inquiry into the complaint given by a senior woman police officer, alleging sexual harassment, against the Joint Director of DVAC.
A division bench comprising Justices K.K. Sasidharan and P.D. Audikesavalu posted to March 6, further hearing of the appeal filed by IG Murugan, challenging an order of a single judge, which directed the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, to proceed with the inquiry into the sexual harassment complaint given by H. Jayalakshmi against him.
When the appeal came up for hearing on Wednesday, V. Selvaraj, counsel for the complainant, submitted that the complainant is now opposing the appointment of Srilakshmi Prasad, IPS, Director General of Police, as presiding officer of the Internal Complaints Committee and even investigation by the CB-CID.
Producing a copy of the petition, which was in SR stage, he submitted that the complainant has filed the present petition by impleading Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami, Deputy Chief Minister O. Paneerselvam and Srilakshmi Prasad, presiding officer of ICC. The complainant further sought a direction from the court in the fresh writ petition to transfer the investigation to an agency which was not under the control of state machinery, he added.
He further submitted that the hearing of the appeals should be adjourned enabling the court to hear the appeal along with the present writ petition.
When the bench pointed out that the hearing of the petition may not come before it as per the roaster, he submitted that he would approach the registry for tagging the present petition along with the appeal.
After hearing both sides, the bench said, “Even today the counsel for complainant on instructions from the complainant, who is present in person before the court, submitted that the status quo would be maintained till the disposal of the writ appeal. We make it clear that this bench has not passed any interim orders against the operation of the order of the single judge or any kind of investigation. The status quo will be maintained taking into account the submission made on behalf of the parties including the complainant”.
