The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued a contempt of court notice to the Indore Police Commissioner today, November 15 for failing to submit a report explaining why Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) charges were not added to a case filed against a teacher for allegedly strip-searching five female students.
The bench, which includes Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, has instructed the Police Commissioner to appear in person before the court on November 25 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be instituted against him, reports Bar and Bench.
The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by social activist Chinmay Mishra, who raised concerns about an incident in which a teacher reportedly strip-searched five female students in an attempt to locate a ringing mobile phone.
The teacher allegedly forced the students to remove their clothing to search them.
On August 9, the court ordered the state to file a complaint against the teacher.
The state then notified the court that a First Information Report (FIR) had been filed against the teacher under Sections 76 (assault or criminal force on a woman with the intent to disrobe) and 79 (act done with the intent to insult a woman's modesty) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
In addition, the teacher was charged with cruelty to children under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, according to the court.
On August 30, the court also requested an explanation from the police as to why the criminal case against the instructor does not include charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
The court requested that the Indore Police Commissioner investigate if the POCSO Act applied in this particular situation and submit a report within a month.
The current contempt notice, however, is the result of the Indore Police Commissioner's failure to follow this August 30 direction. The senior police official is anticipated to appear in person before the court on November 25, when the case will be heard again.
The state was represented by government advocate Bhuwan Gautam, while the petitioner was represented by advocate Abhinav Dhanodkar.
