More than three months after the Thanjavur police were informed, through a written complaint, that the District Child Protection Officer (DCPO) Ranjith Kumar and the Chief Education Officer (CEO) R Madhan Kumar had failed to report the sexual harassment complaints from 43 government school students to the police, no criminal action has been initiated against them.
On August 12, 2024, the 1098 childline received sexual harassment complaints from a few students studying in a government school in Thanjavur district against their maths teacher, Muthukumaran. On the same day, a childline worker visited the school and found that 43 female students had named Muthukumaran as a sexual harasser. The childline worker then informed the school’s headmistress and furnished a detailed report along with a letter to the district’s CEO Madhan Kumar and DCPO Ranjith Kumar on August 13, asking them to take appropriate action against Muthukumaran. However, both officials failed to report it to the police as required by law.
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Section 19 (1) says: “Any person(including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to, (a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or (b) the local police.” Section 21 of the POCSO Act also says that any person who fails to report an offence shall be punished with imprisonment that may extend upto six months or with fine or with both.
CEO Madhan Kumar had, soon after receiving the childline worker’s letter, suspended Muthukumaran but failed to file a police complaint.
It was almost two months later that a complaint followed by a First Information Report (FIR) was filed. The same childline worker filed a complaint at the Orathanadu All Women Police Station (AWPS) on October 7, 2024, upon learning that students from the school were repeatedly complaining to the childline,
An FIR was filed against Muthukumaran, he was arrested on October 9 and later remanded in judicial custody. He was also detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982, commonly known as the Goondas Act.
Although the childline worker mentioned in her complaint that she had sent a detailed report to the DCPO and the CEO along with a letter seeking action, the Orathanadu AWPS did not book them for failing to report the crime.
This is despite the government having repeatedly said through letters that DCPOs should register a complaint if no one comes forward to report crimes against children and that if they failed to do so, departmental and criminal action will follow.
TNM learnt that a show-cause notice was sent to the DCPO by the District Collector soon after the FIR was filed in October 2024. The Orathanadu AWPS Inspector Vanitha also sent a letter asking the DCPO to furnish the details of his action. Ranjith Kumar in his response to the Collector, which TNM has seen, said, “I fully accept that I, as the District Child Protection Officer, have the responsibility and duty to register a case when no one has come forward to file a case on sexual harassment against children. Since the children prayed many times [to protect their identity], considering their best interest, are the only reasons why there was a delay in filing a case… I am very sorry for the delay in filing the case and I assure you that I will work very carefully and prevent such an incident from happening in the future.”
Despite admitting negligence, no criminal action followed.
It is not known if a show-cause notice was issued to CEO Madhan Kumar.
Vidya Reddy, who works at Tulir – Centre for Prevention and Healing of Child Sexual Abuse in Chennai, said, “While it is appalling that the DCPO didn’t register a complaint with the police, the onus in this case is mainly on the Education Department, since they established through their inquiry that there is prima facie evidence, suspended the teacher, and yet did not file a complaint.”
Talking to TNM, Inspector Vanitha said that a chargesheet will be filed and that they have “approached the court to take permission” to add the names of those who had failed to report the incident to the police to the FIR.
As per Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a chargesheet should have been filed within two months – 60 days – from the date the complaint was registered with the police.
Natharsha Malim H, Tamil Nadu’s state coordinator for Association for Voluntary Action (AVA), noted that it is necessary under such circumstances for the police to amend the FIR with the court’s knowledge or approval. However, he added, “If such a letter is submitted, the court will immediately grant the police permission. There will be no such delays.”
S Irshad Ahmed, a senior journalist who has been submitting letters to Inspector Vanitha and later to the Sessions Judge, POCSO Court, Thanjavur, seeking action against those who failed to report the complaints to the police, said, “I have learnt through my lawyer that my letter has been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (SP). But regarding adding names to the FIR, I am told that no letter seeking acknowledgement nor approval from the police has reached the court. If the Orathanadu police are complicit, they should also be booked under POCSO section 21.”
TNM reached out to the SP, R Rajaram, who said that he did not wish to comment. He instead redirected us to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Orathanadu, Shahnaz. The DSP said that she wasn’t aware of the progress in the case. “The Investigating Officer in the case is Vanitha and if she said that a letter has been sent, then it should be true,” she added.
Thanjavur District Collector Priyanka Pankajam also did not respond to TNM. This story will be updated if a response is received.