The Tamil Nadu police and the state government are being widely condemned over the leak of the first information report (FIR) registered over the sexual assault of a woman student in Chennai’s Anna University, which contained identification details of the survivor. On December 23, a man named Gnanasekaran sexually assaulted the student, filmed her, and threatened her. A case was registered, the FIR copy of which was uploaded to the Tamil Nadu police website and made available for public view. Usually, cases of sensitive nature cannot be accessed or viewed by the public.
Greater Chennai City Police Commissioner A Arun said that the FIR details would normally be ‘automatically’ locked in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network Systems (CCTNS) and attributed technical glitches in the transition from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for delay in the automatic locking, creating room for the leak. A case has since been registered at the Kotturpuram police station to identify the source of the leaked FIR, Arun said.
Before going into what exactly happened in the case, let us see what CCTNS is and what is the standard police procedure in a complaint of sexual violence.
CCTNS and procedure after a police complaint is filed
Launched by the Indian government in 2009, CCTNS is a nationwide networked infrastructure for capturing, storing, and sharing data related to crimes and criminals in real-time. The system integrates police stations and other law enforcement agencies, between which there can be data access and collaboration. People can also register their FIR online and track the status of their case online.
So, here is what happens when a complaint is filed: the concerned police officer inquires about the matter and registers an FIR to record the information about the crime and set the criminal law in motion. This is done to obtain and record as much early information as possible about the alleged criminal activity before it is forgotten.
Once the FIR is filed, a copy of it should be delivered to the complainant – be it the survivor or those who filed the complaint on behalf of the survivor – free of cost. The accused or their representative are also eligible for a copy within two days of their application to the police.
The FIR copy, unless the crime is sensitive in nature – such as sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism, or offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act – should be uploaded on the police website within 24 hours of the registration of the FIR. This is in accordance with a Supreme Court order in 2016. The top court said that the decision not to upload the FIR copy on the website cannot be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police/Assistant Superintendent of Police. And this decision should be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional magistrate.
Then comes the technical part. After registering the FIR, it has to be uploaded on the CCTNS platform. For this, the officer-in-charge of the police station should select the ‘Publish’ or ‘Unpublish’ option. On clicking ‘yes’ to Publish, the FIR becomes available on the police website for viewing and downloading by the public. For offences that are sensitive in nature, the police officer has to click the Unpublish option, which will hide the FIR from public view.
What happened in the Anna University case?
On the night of December 23, a woman student of Anna University was spending time on the campus with her boyfriend when she was sexually assaulted by a man. The accused, Gnanasekaran, held her in illegal custody for 40 minutes, filmed her with her boyfriend, threatened her, and then blackmailed her.
The same day, the survivor and a professor from the university’s Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) team filed a police complaint, leading to the registration of an FIR. Gnanasekaran was identified and arrested the next day. Soon after, allegations of his links to the DMK emerged as several pictures of him with party functionaries were posted on social media.
Meanwhile, the FIR was uploaded on the Tamil Nadu police website. This was a huge breach of privacy of the survivor, as the FIR contained her name, address, and other identification details. Further, the FIR was also criticised for slut-shaming the woman for spending time with her boyfriend.
Chennai Commissioner Arun explained that the FIR had been filed exactly as per the survivor’s statement and said that the police are obligated to replicate the survivor’s words without alteration. “Typically, FIR details for certain crimes such as POCSO and women-related offences are automatically locked in the CCTNS. But now that there is a transition from IPC to BNS, a technical issue may have caused a delay in locking the FIR,” Arun said. He added that it might have been downloaded from the website or obtained from the complainant’s side.
He said that leaking the FIR and debating about the FIR in such sensitive cases is an offence. “Disclosing the survivor’s identity is an offence, so it is being investigated as a separate case by the Kotturpuram police. Action will be taken against those who leaked the identity,” he said.
Need for guidance to survivors
The FIR also included details that were irrelevant to the sexual assault. Vidya Reddy who works at Tulir – Centre for Prevention and Healing of Child Sexual Abuse in Chennai, told TNM, “Apparently the intimacy being shared by the couple was mentioned in the FIR. This is not at all relevant to the FIR, which should stick to the context and details of the sexual assault. If the girl was sexually assaulted, why were these unnecessary details needed?”
She also added that there is a certain diffidence when it comes to anything related to sex, sexual violence in particular. “Although sex is a powerful drive, we are always trying to marginalise it. This failure has led to a warped understanding of sexual violence for stakeholders in the criminal justice system, including health respondents. This discomfort and inhibition often impinges on capturing the enormity of the context of sexual violence – visceral elements like yelling, pushing, violence of threats used, and emotional damage caused. By failing to articulate the experience in its entirety, we fail to understand what the victim has gone through.”
Stating that the survivor’s complaint letter should be fully reflected in the FIR without any embellishment of “ingredients”, Vidya pointed out that survivors often need guidance to write a complaint, because of the possible effects of the trauma. It is crucial that an independent Support Person who is trauma informed and can navigate the criminal justice system assists the survivor articulate the violence for the record. Officers who have been specially oriented about the dynamics of sexual violence, rape trauma syndrome, and PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] should be assigned in such matters.”
Ananthakrishna, a criminal advocate and former Additional Public Prosecutor of the Madras High Court, said that the FIR leak might have been a human error. Underscoring the importance of victim confidentiality, particularly in serious offences like those under the POCSO Act, he said, “The victim’s name is not disclosed publicly to prevent further trauma and to encourage others to come forward. While the FIR might include the survivor’s identity, this information must remain confidential.”
Acknowledging that there were human and systemic flaws, he noted, “Human errors in uploading or handling FIRs can occur. Also, the change in laws from IPC to BNS could have resulted in this error. Such mistakes should be addressed without exaggerating them. Police officers should be sensitised in such matters. However, I want to stress that such instances should never recur.”
Vidya, however, raised a crucial question. “If the FIR leak was due to a technical glitch caused by transitioning from IPC to BNS, it then begs the question – have details of all sexual violence cases since July been leaked?” she asked.