The Tamilnadu government has reached the Supreme Court against Madras high court’s order for the CBI probe in the Lavanya case wherein a 17-year old girl had committed suicide after the school had allegedly asked her to convert to Christianity. However, the victim’s father had already filed a caveat in the Supreme Court as the state government was likely to challenge the direction given by the Madras high court.
The DGP of Tamilnadu police has sought a stay on the order dated 31st January passed by the single judge bench of Justice GR Swaminathan. The order transfers the probe from the state police to CBI, whereas the DGP has argued that there were no circumstances warranting the transfer of the investigation from the state police.
Earlier, Madras high court’s Madurai bench had ordered on 31st January 2022 that the case should be probed by CBI and not by the state police. Besides this decision of 31st January, the state has challenged all the interim orders including orders dated 21st, 22nd, and 24th January 2022. The state is arguing that these orders interfered with the investigation.
The petition argues that there were no circumstances warranting the transfer of investigation to CBI from the State Police, and had prayed for a stay order on the High Court order. Moreover, the state govt has also sought the expunction of certain adverse remarks made by the High Court against the probe by state police.
Earlier in the day, after it was reported that the Tamil Nadu govt is likely to approach the Supreme Court against the High Court order transferring the case to CBI, the victim’s father had filed a caveat in the apex court. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had transferred the case to CBI based on a petition filed by the father.
The Madras high court had heard in detail the arguments presented by the lawyers of all the three parties viz. the petitioner, the prosecution, and the missionary school. After hearing the arguments, the court had said “It is too early in the day for the police or the politicians to jump to conclusions. But they have done so. That is why the petitioner is apprehensive that if the investigation remains with State police, he will not get justice. His apprehension is justified.”
The court had further observed “What led the child to suicide has to be investigated. Before the investigation officer, the dying declaration of the child is available. Their authenticity is undoubted. Without doing so, the District Superintendent of Police wanted to completely suppress the conversion angle. The foregoing circumstances cumulatively taken will definitely create an impression that the investigation is not proceeding on the right lines. Since a high-ranking Hon’ble Minister himself has taken a stand, investigation cannot continue with the State Police.”
The High Court had also ordered the police to focus on the suicide and the allegations made by the girl in her dying declaration, not on who had video recorded her statement.
