NHRC issues show-cause notice to the Jharkhand Government in a case of sexual harassment by police officials
In a petition received by the National Human Rights Commission, the complainant from Jharkhand, Smt. Tiloka Mandal, who was also the victim, alleged that she and her daughter were being sexually harassed by police officials.
Taking cognizance of the complaint the Commission called for a report from the State Government. The report revealed that a case had been registered against the complainant and a bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Magistrate. However, the report failed to submit the copies of the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded in the course of inquiry by the police.
The Commission thus called for the statements. According to the statements, the police officials had visited the complainant in her house late in the night and had harassed and misbehaved with the mother and the daughter. The statements of the petitioner and her daughter were received by the Commission were dated 11 July 2001; while the Commission had called for these statements in its direction dated 6 April 2000. Taking objection to this irregularity of reporting, the Commission took a view that there was an attempt to keep it in the dark with regards to the facts of the case.
However, in a later report received from the State Government, it admitted to the misbehaviour of the police officials with the petitioner and assured the Commission that departmental action was being taken against the guilty officials. From this admission of the State Government, it was clear that there had been violation of the human rights of the petitioner and her dignity had been hurt. Thus, on 22 October 2001, the Commission issued notice to the State of Jharkhand to show-cause why ‘immediate interim relief’ under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, be not given to the petitioner.
The Commission regrets that no reply had been received from the State Government till date and a reminder has been issued for the same.
Taking cognizance of the complaint the Commission called for a report from the State Government. The report revealed that a case had been registered against the complainant and a bailable warrant issued by the Court of the Magistrate. However, the report failed to submit the copies of the statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded in the course of inquiry by the police.
The Commission thus called for the statements. According to the statements, the police officials had visited the complainant in her house late in the night and had harassed and misbehaved with the mother and the daughter. The statements of the petitioner and her daughter were received by the Commission were dated 11 July 2001; while the Commission had called for these statements in its direction dated 6 April 2000. Taking objection to this irregularity of reporting, the Commission took a view that there was an attempt to keep it in the dark with regards to the facts of the case.
However, in a later report received from the State Government, it admitted to the misbehaviour of the police officials with the petitioner and assured the Commission that departmental action was being taken against the guilty officials. From this admission of the State Government, it was clear that there had been violation of the human rights of the petitioner and her dignity had been hurt. Thus, on 22 October 2001, the Commission issued notice to the State of Jharkhand to show-cause why ‘immediate interim relief’ under section 18(3) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, be not given to the petitioner.
The Commission regrets that no reply had been received from the State Government till date and a reminder has been issued for the same.