Veeramani's Daughter Moves Madras High Court Alleging Illegal Detention, Human Rights Violations By SIT

When the plea came up before Justice V Lakshminarayanan on Wednesday (November 11), Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani requested the court to grant time to file a response to the plea and to place the facts before the court. Accepting the request, the court adjourned the plea to Tuesday (November 17).

Archana has moved the court to quash a summons issued to her under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and to direct investigation into the alleged human rights violation.

The petitioner submitted that she has not been arrayed as an accused in the case being investigated by the SIT, however, as part of courtesy, she had informed the SIT about her travel to Singapore on October 23^rd, to attend to her son who needed medical treatment.

While so, she submitted that when she had boarded the flight to Singapore, the staff deplaned her from the flight without giving any reasons or without any summons, warrant, court order, LOC or other authority. She added that she was forcibly taken to the SIT office in Egmore, where she was questioned by the SIT.

The petitioner submitted that while she was at the SIT office, she was not even permitted to use the restroom. She also submitted that she was suffering from Multiple sclerosis, which affected her central nervous system, and by 5 pm, she collapsed on the floor and lost bladder control several times. She further submitted that the police did not give her medical assessment during this time and instead recorded her on a mobile phone and video camera.

She submitted that at 9 pm the same day, 7 hours after she was taken off the aircraft and 5 hours after she reached the SIT office, she was served with a summons under Section 35(3) of the BNSS and her personal belongings, including her laptop and phone, were seized without a seizure mahazar. Later, at 9:30 pm, she was taken to the hospital for treatment.

The petitioner also submitted that she suffered physical collapse, mental distress and public humiliation. She thus approached the court to quash the summons and to take action against the alleged human rights violation.

When the matter was taken up, Senior Advocate Nithya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS was illegal as it could be served only on an accused. Ramakrishnan argued that, even to this day, the petitioner had not been added as an accused in the case and, as such, the police could not have issued a notice under Section 35(3) to her.

APP Arun Anbumani, however, submitted that the police had attempted to serve a witness summons to the petitioner and her mother under Section 179 BNSS but since the parties were not present at home, the notice was given to the watchman. While so, when the officers came to know that the petitioner was leaving the country, a summons was sent to her on WhatsApp, and immediately after that her phone was switched off. It was also informed that the summons under Section 35(3) was issued only after interrogation, when the officers found some materials.

Anbumani also denied the allegations of human rights violation and argued that a doctor, who was also a relative of the petitioner, was brought to the SIT office when the latter's health deteriorated, and even after that the petitioner was taken to the hospital where she was given due care and sent home in an ambulance.

Anbumani requested the court to grant time to get instructions and respond to the plea in detail. Accepting the request, the court has adjourned the plea to November 17.