Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Thursday took serious note of allegations that a 14-year-old girl associated with the protests by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) had been intimidated and that her residence was subjected to stone pelting.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed that allegations concerning the intimidation of a minor could not be taken lightly and stressed that no person could be permitted to browbeat a victim or her family for pursuing criminal proceedings.

The bench, also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana , orally sought status reports from Uttar Pradesh and Delhi concerning the FIR, the security arrangements made for the minor and her family, and the action taken against those allegedly involved in the assault and intimidation.

The bench also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to ensure that appropriate action was taken on the girl's FIR and that adequate protection was provided to her.

The issue came before the Court during proceedings in the student protest matter, after Advocate T Bhalla mentioned the concerns of the 14-year-old girl.  She submitted that recently, a person had bragged on video that he had attacked the girl's father during the CJP's protest. That person, Swatanra Bharadwaj, was later arrested and remanded to custody.

Without taking any names, Bhalla submitted, "A person has admitted on video, in a manner of bragging, that he has committed that act. Instead of prosecuting people who accompanied him, FIR has been filed against the child. This is against this court's order. We request that the State of UP and NCT of Delhi file response. Her FIR has been taken by Parliament Street Police Station. We can provide video evidence that her residence was subjected to pelting. The committee enquiry will take time. If that child faces some mischief, we will not be able to reverse those things"

Taking serious note of the allegations, the CJI said, "If there are anti-social elements who indulged in violence against child, and they are roaming free, and are trying to browbeat the child, that may be a serious thing. Cause is justified. There can't be a second opinion."

Addressing the Solicitor General, the CJI stated, "Child is a child. Some measures to protect the child can be taken. This incident can be taken as a standalone [case] by local police."

SG Mehta submitted that he was aware of the issue from the social media posts of the child.

Bhalla also argued that there are videos showing four policemen accompanying the miscreants who attacked the protesters, and no action has been taken against them.

In this backdrop, Justice Joymalya Bagchi told the SG, "We would like immediate action on that FIR and police protection to victim and family by UP police. Investigation be conducted by Parliament Street PS".

Senior Advocate PV Dinesh mentioned a plea filed by 2nd year law student Akshat Tripathi against the notice issued to him (later withdrawn) by Executive Magistrate, Greater Noida, despite the Court's order protecting student protestors. He requested the Court to take up the matter, urging that a strong message needs to be sent to the IAS officers. 

Tags: