{"id":44748,"date":"2005-05-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-05-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005"},"modified":"2014-11-10T02:32:06","modified_gmt":"2014-11-09T21:02:06","slug":"dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","title":{"rendered":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 10\/05\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM            \n\nW.P.No.36690 of 2004  \nand \nW.P.M.P.No.44047 of 2004   \n\n\nDr.C.Gomathi                           ..                              Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Government of Tamil Nadu \n   represented by the Secretary\n   Health & Family Welfare Department\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Police \n   Greater Chennai, Egmore \n   Chennai-8.\n\n3. The Director\n   Medical & Rural Health Services\n   DMS Compound   \n   Chennai-600 006.\n\n4. The Director of Medical Education\n   Kilpauk\n   Chennai-600 010.\n\n5. Thiru N.Thalavai Sundaram\n   Minister for Health & Family Welfare\n   Govt. of Tamil Nadu\n   Fort St. George\n   Chennai-600 009.\n\n6. Dr.Balakrishnaraj\n   Dean, Kilpauk Medical College\n   Hospital, Chennai.\n\n\n7. The Regional Director\n   Central Bureau of Investigation\n   EVK Sampath Building \n   Chennai-6.                           ..                          Respondents\n\n\n        PRAYER:  Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  of\nIndia  for  the  issue  of  a writ of Mandamus directing the Central Bureau of\nInvestigation (CBI) represented by its Regional Director, Chennai-6,  the  7th\nrespondent  herein to register a case on the basis of the representations made\nby the petitioner to the second respondent on 2 2.9.2003  and  the  subsequent\nrepresentations  made  by  the  petitioner  on 9.12.2003, 5.1.2004, 19.1.2004,\n30.7.2004, 11.11.2004, 27.11.2004 & 29.11.2004  to  various  authorities  with\ncopies endorsed to the second respondent and investigate the case and submit a\nreport to this Court within a time frame fixed by this Court.\n\n\n\n\n!For petitioner         :       Mr.P.Veeraraghavan\n                                                Senior Advocate for\n                                                Mr.C.S.Karnan\n\nFor respondents-1 to 4 :       Mr.A.L.Somayaji\n                                                Addl.  Advocate General\n                                                Assisted by\n                                                Mr.D.Krishna Kumar\n                                                Special Govt.  Pleader\n                                                Mr.S.Venkatesh\n                                                Special Govt.  Pleader &\n                                                Mr.R.Vijayakumar\n                                                Government Advocate\n                                                Mr.E.Sampath Kumar, G.A.\nFor 5th respondent              :       Mr.N.Jothi\n                                        for Mr.L.P.Shanmughasundaram\n\nFor 6th respondent              :       Mr.P.Sundaram\n                                                Government Advocate\n\nFor 7th respondent              :       Mr.P.Chandrasekaran\n\n\n\n:ORDER  \n<\/pre>\n
        The  petitioner  prays  for a Mandamus to direct the Central Bureau of
\nInvestigation (C.B.I.) to register a case on the basis of the  representations
\nmade  by  the  petitioner to the second respondent on 22.9.2003 and subsequent
\nrepresentations dated 9.12.2003, 5.1.2004, 19.1.2004,  30.7.2004,  11.11.2004,
\n27.11.2004   and   29.11.2004  to  various  authorities  with  copies  to  the
\nCommissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, and to investigate the  case  and  to
\nsubmit a report to this Court within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The petitioner is a Doctor in the service of the State Government.
\nHaving  regard  to  the  nature of the prayer in the writ petition, namely, to
\nentrust the complaint for investigation by C.B.I.    and  the  nature  of  the
\nrelief  which  is  being finally granted under this order, I do not propose to
\ndeal in a detailed manner, the pleadings,  arguments,  materials  and  various
\nrulings submitted  by both sides.  I propose to restrict only to a gist of the
\npleadings and submissions made by  both  sides  in  order  to  appreciate  the
\nessentials  of the complaint and the defence by the persons accused of various
\ncommissions and omissions.  I am also not recording any of my  impressions  on
\nthe  contentions  by  both  sides,  so that the proposed enquiry should not be
\ndiverted or prejudiced.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  According  to  the  petitioner,  she  belongs  to  Schedule  Caste
\ncommunity  and  with great difficulty, she completed her medical course in the
\nyear 1984.  Her husband died in a  road  accident  on  6.6.1989.    She  later
\nunderwent training in JIPMER, Pondicherry and in the same year, she joined the
\nGovernment service.    In the affidavit, she has given details relating to her
\nservice particulars and postings in different places.  She  alleges  that  she
\nwas  transferred  to  various places in an unreasonable manner and in the year
\n2000, she was posted as Tutor in Government Kilpauk Medical  College  Hospital
\n(K.M.C.H.)  from  7.7.2000  and  thereafter as Tutor in Madras Medical College
\nHospital and again to K.M.C.H.    on  24.7.2003  as  Tutor  and  as  Assistant
\nProfessor.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  According to her, the architect of such frequent transfers was the
\nfifth respondent, who is the Minister for Health and Family Welfare Department
\nof the  Government of Tamil Nadu.  According to her, eversince he came to know
\nthat she is a widow, he tried to have immoral relationship with her on several
\noccasions, which attempts were constantly resisted by her.  She would  further
\nstate that the  fifth  respondent used to visit K.M.C.H.  at 6.00 a.m.  in the
\nearly morning frequently and would sit in  the  Dean’s  room  mainly  for  the
\npurpose of  threatening  her.  She further states that on 19.9.2003, the fifth
\nrespondent, to the shock of everyone, came directly to the Labour  Ward  where
\nshe  was  working and started shouting at her in the presence of many persons.
\nTherefore, on 22.9.2003, she sent a telegram to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and
\nother authorities including the Commissioner of Police,  Chennai,  complaining
\nabout  the  mental  and  sexual  tortures made by the fifth respondent and his
\nclose friends.  After  the  telegram,  though  the  fifth  respondent  stopped
\nvisiting the hospital, however, continued to issue instructions to the Dean to
\ntransfer her  to  some other place.  This resulted in the Dean and other staff
\nmembers allegedly indulging in  torturing  her  and  creating  false  evidence
\nagainst her.    In order to avoid and to escape from the fifth respondent, she
\nhad applied for earned leave for 71 days from 4.11.2003 to 13.1.2004.    As  a
\nresult  of  the  complaint lodged by her, she was ill-treated by the Dean, the
\nsixth respondent and the Deputy Commissioner Kamala, who   <\/p>\n
came to the Labour Ward and shouted at her forcibly pushing  her  out  of  the
\nward.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The  petitioner states that on 10.12.2003, another transfer order
\nwas issued, transferring her from K.M.C.H.   to  the  Government  Hospital  at
\nNagapattinam.  As she was on leave, the transfer order was affixed on the door
\nof  the  petitioner’s  house,  which  was  noticed  by  the petitioner only on
\n3.1.2004.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  In  the  affidavit,  the  petitioner  has  given  further  details
\nregarding   the  various  complaints  sent  by  her  to  several  authorities.
\nReference is also made to O.A.No.1518 of 2004  filed  before  the  Tamil  Nadu
\nAdministrative  Tribunal,  praying  to  set  aside the order of transfer dated
\n10.12.2003.  The Tribunal, by its order dated 9.4.2004, disposed of  the  said
\nO.A.   with  a  direction  to the respondent to accommodate her at Chennai, if
\npossible.  Thereafter, she filed W.P.No.15248 of 20 04 to quash the  order  of
\nthe Tribunal.    An  order  of  interim  stay was granted by the High Court on
\n2.6.2004.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Again, on 30.7.2004, a detailed representation  was  sent  to  the
\nHon’ble  Chief Minister, detailing the various atrocities alleged to have been
\ncommitted by the fifth respondent.  In the meanwhile, her counsel withdrew the
\nContempt Petition which was filed before this Court, alleging disobedience  of
\nthe interim order granted in W.P.No.15248 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
        8.   In  the  affidavit,  the  petitioner had given details of further
\nrepresentations made to various authorities,  inclusive  of  the  Governor  of
\nTamil   Nadu  on  29.11.2004,  requesting  sanction  to  prosecute  the  fifth
\nrespondent on grounds of molestation, harassment, both mentally and physically
\nand under the provisions of the Protection  of  Civil  Rights  Act,  1955  and
\nProtection of  Human  Rights  Act,  1993.  The allegations made in the several
\ncomplaints disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offences by the fifth
\nand sixth respondents.  However, till date,  the  respondents,  who  are  duty
\nbound  to  register a case , have failed to register a case and to investigate
\nthe complaint.  Nonregistration of the complaint would disclose that the State
\nGovernment\/ police was not prepared to investigate the case  in  an  objective
\nmanner.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   The  petitioner  further  submits  that  in  spite of the various
\njudgments of the Supreme Court, there are incidents of  sexual  harassment  at
\nthe  place  of  work as well as violations of fundamental rights and of gender
\nequality and the right to life and  liberty.    According  to  her,  the  main
\nculprit  is the fifth respondent and he being a Minister, an enquiry has to be
\nconducted by an independent agency.  The state Government has  not  taken  any
\naction in spite of several complaints of gross violation of human rights.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent,
\nthe  Deputy Secretary to Government, it is stated that the petitioner had sent
\nseveral petitions to various authorities, including a petition dated 6.11.2003
\nto the Chief Minister’s  Cell  and  on  9.12.2003  to  the  Government.    The
\npetitions  were  examined  by  the Director of Medical Education and a factual
\nreport was prepared and sent to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell  and  it  is
\nevident  from  the  report  that the allegations of the petitioner were false.
\nThe report reveals that a Committee of Senior Medical Officers were  appointed
\nby  the  Dean,  which  had concluded after due enquiry that the petitioner was
\nguilty of using abusive and offensive language against  the  staff  repeatedly
\nand  it  was also opined that a psychiatric evaluation of the petitioner would
\nbe necessary and recommended urgent action by the Administration.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  It is further stated that the petitioner’s  conduct  had  spoiled
\nthe  congenial  atmosphere  in  all  the institutions wherever she was posted.
\nTherefore, it was decided to post her on the non-teaching side.  Though  there
\nwere  several complaints against her, the Government had been taking a lenient
\nview and not taking any action against the petitioner, as  she  has  lost  her
\nhusband and  she  also  belongs  to a socially backward class.  The petitioner
\nherself had sought for transfer by letter dated 9.12.2003  and  as  such,  the
\npetitioner  was  posted  at  Government Hospital, Nagapattinam, on 10.12.2003.
\nThe subsequent request of the petitioner to  post  her  at  Chennai  was  duly
\nconsidered and  she  was  posted  at E.S.I.  Hospital, Chennai, by proceedings
\ndated 7.4.20 05.  It is further stated that the petition sent to the  Governor
\nof Tamil  Nadu  was also forwarded to the Government.  The petitioner had made
\nseveral allegations against several dignitaries, including the Hon’ble  Judges
\nof the  High  Court in her petitions.  The antecedents of the petitioner would
\nreveal that she is always  in  the  habit  of  making  reckless  and  unwanted
\nallegations against  all  the  colleagues.  After examining of the issues, the
\nGovernment took the view that the petitions sent  by  the  petitioner  do  not
\ndeserve any  further  action.    Subsequently, she made a complaint before the
\nState Human Rights Commission  on  7.9.2004,  which  was  registered  as  Case
\nNo.7506 of 2004.  The complaint was closed on 30.9.2004 on the ground that the
\nsame pertains to service matter and is outside the purview of the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   On  the  basis of the recommendations of the enquiry report, the
\nGovernment issued G.O.  (2D) No.68, Health  dated  3.12.2004,  constituting  a
\nCommittee for  psychiatric  evaluation  of the petitioner.  The petitioner was
\ndirected by the fourth respondent to appear before the Committee on 5.12.2004.
\nHowever, for reasons best known to the petitioner, she did not  appear  before
\nthe Evaluation Committee.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  In the affidavit filed by the second respondent, the Commissioner
\nof  Police,  it is stated that the copy of the telegram sent by the petitioner
\non 22.9.2003 was received in the office of the second respondent.    The  same
\nwas  directed  to  be  enquired  by  the  Kilpauk  Police by endorsement dated
\n22.9.2003.  The Inspector of Police, G3  Police  Station,  enquired  into  the
\ntelegram dated 22.9.2003, and the petitioner appeared in the Police Station on
\n26.10.2003 and gave a letter to the effect that there was no necessity to take
\nany action on her complaint.  Therefore, the complaint was finally closed.  It
\nis  true  that  the  petitioner  sought  protection  by  her application dated
\n5.1.2004 to observe fast in front of the office of  the  Director  of  Medical
\nEducation, without  mentioning  any date in the application.  The said request
\nwas rejected by the respondent on 12.1.2004.  It is further  stated  that  the
\nseventh  respondent cannot investigate the complaint inasmuch as under Section
\n3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 194 6,  there  has  to  be  a
\nnotification  as  regards  the  offences  in  respect of which only the C.B.I.
\ncould investigate.  There was no need  for  the  C.B.I.    to  step  into  the
\ninvestigation.   In  the  absence  of any consent by the State Government, the
\nC.B.I.  cannot step in for any investigation.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  A joint counter affidavit has been filed by respondents-3 and  4,
\nthe deponent  being the third respondent, Director of Medical Services.  After
\nreferring to the entry of the petitioner in the service,  it  is  stated  that
\nfrom  the  year  1999 onwards, the fourth respondent has been receiving lot of
\nserious complaints from various quarters.  The first  complaint  was  received
\nfrom Dr.Mythili  Bhaskaran,  Reader, Stanley Medical College Hospital.  It was
\nbrought to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner was not  involved
\nproperly  either in teaching, evaluation or any other departmental activities.
\nOn 23.7.1999 , the Dean,  Stanley  Medical  College,  had  reported  that  the
\npetitioner was using foul language against her students in the hospital at odd
\nhours.   Therefore,  she  had  to  be  transferred  and she was transferred to
\nGovernment Kasturba Gandhi Hospital, Chennai.    Even  thereafter,  complaints
\nwere  received  from  the Superintendent of the Kasturba Gandhi Hospital about
\nthe indecent behaviour of the petitioner of using unparliamentary  and  filthy
\nwords, thus  causing  annoyance  to  the administrators.  Many more complaints
\nwere received while she was working as Tutor in Pharmacology at Madras Medical
\nCollege, Chennai, again about her misbehaviour,  using  unparliamentary  words
\nand not  keeping  the  dignity  and  decorum.    Therefore,  a  committee  was
\nconstituted on 11.11.2 002 nominating four Senior Medical Officers to  enquire
\ninto the complaint.  The Enquiry Committee had given a detailed report and was
\nof  the  unanimous opinion that the petitioner was guilty of using abusive and
\noffensive language in alleging with sexual innuendo against everyone including
\nthe last grade servants.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  The petitioner was, thereafter, directed by the fourth respondent
\nto appear before the Committee for an  enquiry  on  19.12.2002.    Though  she
\nattended  the  enquiry, she left in the middle without answering the questions
\nput by the Committee.  Another  communication  was  sent  to  the  petitioner,
\ncalling  upon  her  to appear for an enquiry before the Committee on 3.1.2003.
\nThe petitioner not only refused to receive the communication, but also did not
\nappear for the enquiry.  Thereafter, the  enquiry  was  proceeded  further  by
\nexamining a  number  of  witness  and the enquiry concluded on 25.3.2003.  The
\nCommittee expressed that psychiatric evaluation of  the  petitioner  would  be
\nwarranted  and  urgent  action  was  directed to be taken to save the innocent
\nstaff of the college from unnecessary harassment by the petitioner.  Based  on
\nthe  report  submitted by the Senior Doctors, orders were issued on 10.7.2003,
\ntransferring and posting her at R.S.R.M.  Hospital, Royapuram.  In the counter<\/p>\n
affidavit, certain incidents and facts relating to the alleged  misconduct  of
\nthe petitioner during the year 2002-2003 have been set out in detail.\n<\/p>\n
        16.   It is also stated that the petitioner’s activities disrupted the
\nsmooth functioning of the medical institutions wherever she was working.   The
\nGovernment  had been taking a lenient view and not to take disciplinary action
\nagainst the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  The contention of the petitioner  regarding  the  nature  of  the
\norder  passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is also denied and the
\nreference is made to  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  dated  8.7.2004.    After
\nreferring  to many antecedents, it is stated that the petitioner was always in
\na habit of throwing false allegations against almost all officers,  co-workers
\nand other  colleagues.    The  entire  writ petition is only intended to avoid
\njoining the E.S.I.  Hospital, Chennai, and also to forestall the  disciplinary
\nactions against  her.  The intention of the petitioner would be evident by the
\ninconsistent statements made by the petitioner in her representations.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  A very detailed counter affidavit has been  filed  by  the  fifth
\nrespondent\/Minister for Health and Family Welfare, denying all the allegations
\nof  the  petitioner  of  sexual  harassment  or  any  other physical or mental
\ntorture, as claimed by the petitioner.  According to the fifth respondent,  he
\nhad never  met  the  petitioner prior to 19.9.2003.  Regarding the incident on
\n19.9.2003, the respondent would  state  that  in  a  news  item  published  on
\n12.9.2003,  it  was  reported  that  a mother, after delivering her child, had
\nabandoned th e child and left the Labour Ward of K.M.C.H.   and  consequently,
\nthe child was left in the care of the Hospital.  This created a problem in the
\nadministration  and  therefore,  he  conducted  a surprise visit on 19.9.2003.
\nWhen he visited the labour ward, the duty Doctor namely, the writ  petitioner,
\nwas not available  at  8.45  a.m.   and did not report for duty till then.  In
\nterms of working hours, she  should  have  reported  for  duty  at  7.00  a.m.
\nitself.   The  fifth respondent was informed that she never cares to attend to
\nduty nor was she keen in attending to duty even during duty hours.  Therefore,
\ninstead of waiting for the arrival of the petitioner,  he  visited  the  other
\nwards in  the Hospital and returned to the labour ward again at 9.45 a.m.  and
\neven then, the petitioner had not arrived.  While he was in  a  discussion  on
\ngeneral aspects,  she entered the place around 10.15 a.m.  and she was pointed
\nout to him to be the duty doctor.  Thereafter he had asked her why she was not
\npresent during the duty hours and she falsely pleaded as if she  had  obtained
\npermission for  one  hour  from the Head of the Department.  There was no such
\nwritten request or orders to the said effect.  The Dean and  others  who  were
\npresent,  did  not  say  anything  good  about  the  petitioner  and  everyone
\ncomplained about her attitude and callous approach to duty.  The way  she  was
\nworking was  not  helpful  to  the  public.  This made the fifth respondent to
\ninstruct the authorities to transfer her to some other Department in  K.M.C.H.
\nor to  the  Government  Peripheral  Hospital,  Anna Nagar.  Even though he had
\ngiven instructions on 19.9.20  03  itself,  the  transfer  was  made  only  on
\n3.11.2003,  that too, based on complaints by all the Assistant Surgeons of the
\nHospital.  It was only thereafter, she was transferred.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  In the counter affidavit, the fifth respondent had dealt with the
\nvarious allegations contained in the writ petition and  the  fifth  respondent
\nhas  stated  that  all  the  allegations  are not only false, but was of usual
\npattern of the petitioner making certain allegations in a stereo-typed manner.
\nAfter dealing with many of the complaints, the fifth  respondent  states  that
\nthe  usual  methodology  which  the petitioner adopts was to invent and making
\nfalse allegations.  Her attempts were only to avoid  transfer  by  threat  and
\nintimidation  and  she  also  takes  her  gender as a tool to achieve the said
\npurpose.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   The  fifth  respondent  has  also  stated  that  it  was sad and
\nunfortunate that such allegations are  being  made  against  himself  who  was
\ndischarging his  public  duties.  He is a law graduate having practised in the
\nHigh Court for about 18 years and had been a law officer.    He  has  been  in
\npublic  life for at least 15 years and held several positions including having
\nbeen a Member of Parliament (council and states).    He  has  also  served  in
\nseveral  committees  of  the  Parliament  and he has held various positions as
\nMinister for P.W.D., Revenue Department and presently, the  Health  portfolio.
\nHe  has never faced such reckless allegations and if such reckless allegations
\ncould be made on persons for  the  sake  of  personal  benefits  only  persons
\nwithout integrity and morals can come to politics in future.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   The  sixth respondent, Dean of the College, has filed a separate
\ncounter affidavit denying the various allegations and raising  contentions  in
\nthe   same   manner  as  in  the  counter  affidavit  of  the  Government  and
\nrespondents-3 and 4.  He has denied the allegations made against him.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The petitioner has filed reply affidavits with reference  to  all
\nthe  counter  affidavits  filed  on  behalf of the several respondents and the
\nfifth respondent had also filed a rejoinder affidavit to the  reply  filed  by
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        23.   Mr.S.Veeraraghavan,  learned  senior counsel for the petitioner,
\nvery vehemently contended that this is a specimen case of woes of a woman that
\ntoo  belonging  to  scheduled  caste  being  subjected  to  sexual  abuse  and
\nhumiliation  by  men  in  power and yet, does not get proper justice or relief
\nfrom the highest authorities, despite her knocking at  the  doors  of  several
\nauthorities right  upto  the  Hon’ble  Chief Minister.  Learned senior counsel
\ntook  me  elaborately  through  the  various  records  and  correspondence  to
\nsubstantiate his contention that all the repeated complaints of the petitioner
\nto the   different   authorities  fell  into  deaf  ears.    The  departmental
\nauthorities and the Police Department did not take any step to hear the cry of
\nthe petitioner for justice.  In order to disprove the contention of the police
\nthat they had not received many of the complaints  as  enlisted  in  the  writ
\npetition, learned counsel produced postal acknowledgments.  Reference was made
\nto  various  judgments especially of the Supreme Court to drive home the point
\nthat in cases where the local bigwigs and men in power in the State Government
\nwere involved, it was always desirable  to  entrust  the  investigation  to  a
\ndifferent agency.   He further contended that no one will be prejudiced by the
\ninvestigation being entrusted to an independent agency like the C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the  fifth  respondent,
\nagainst  whom  allegations of sexual abuse have been made mainly, in contrast,
\nsubmits that this is a typical case of the undesirable growing trend  of  some
\nof  the  vicious  minded  persons,  who  revel  in making false allegations by
\nwearing the shield of their sex and community.  The fact that they  are  women
\nor  that  they  belong to scheduled caste appear to be a licence to them to do
\nwhatever they like and get away with it.  Learned counsel took me through  the
\nseveral  materials  in  support  of  his  contention that the behaviour of the
\npetitioner throughout her career was one of neglect of duties, flinging  false
\nallegations and accusations against superiors, equal staff members, workmen of
\nthe last grade and never had any due regard to the hierarchy of the officials.
\nShe was always accustomed to a habit of abusing everyone in vulgar and vicious
\nmanner.   Learned  counsel  took  me through some of the proceedings which had
\nbeen initiated against her in the past much earlier to  the  incident,  which,
\naccording  to  him, reflects that she was always accustomed only to such false
\nand malicious accusations against everyone who come in her way and  who  would
\nnot oblige  her.  This is not the first time she is making such allegations of
\nsexual abuse and the records disclose  that  the  same  has  always  been  the
\nregular pattern of her behaviour.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   Dealing  with  the incident on 19.9.2003, after referring to the
\nfacts stated in the counter affidavit of the fifth respondent, learned counsel
\nwould submit that the confrontation was only due to the negligence of the duty
\nby the petitioner when the fifth respondent had  visited  the  hospital  on  a
\nsurprise check.    In the counter affidavit, he has positively stated that she
\nhas not met the petitioner any time before 1993.  In the reply  filed  by  the
\npetitioner,  there  is  no  specific denial of the said assertion by the fifth
\nrespondent, which would go a  long  way  to  establish  that  the  allegations
\nagainst the fifth respondent were frivolous and motivated.  The entire vicious
\nexercise by the petitioner was only to avoid the transfer and to forestall the
\ndisciplinary  proceeding  which  was  bound  to  follow because of the serious
\nmisconduct of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        26.  Learned counsel would further contend that  the  allegation  that
\nthe fifth respondent was visiting the hospital from office at 6.00 a.  m.  was
\nnot  at  all possible, considering the position which the fifth respondent was
\nholding and the security around him.  His activities and  time  schedules  are
\ncompletely  recorded and there is absolutely no truth in the said statement of
\nthe petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        27.  Learned counsel for the fifth respondent  also  referred  to  the
\nproceedings  initiated  by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative
\nTribunal, questioning the order of transfer dated 10.12.2003, in which,  there
\nwas  absolutely no reference to any misbehaviour by the fifth respondent, much
\nless of any sexual harassment.  If the present allegations against  the  fifth
\nrespondent are true, the petitioner would have certainly raised the said issue
\nbefore  the Administrative Tribunal, considering that an order of transfer can
\nbe questioned only on limited grounds such as mala fides and personal motives.
\nAs regards the various representations, learned counsel would state that  some
\nof  them  are manipulated and do not correspond with the copies filed with the
\nwrit petition.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   Learned  counsel  also  dealt  with  elaborately,  the   various
\nrepresentations  sent  by  the  petitioner  on different occasions and had, in
\nparticular, pointed out  the  representation  dated  27.9.2004,  addressed  to
\nMr.Justice  Thangaraj, Vice Chairman, State Human Rights Commission, in which,
\nshe has abused the Judges of the High Court without  any  justifiable  reason.
\nReference  was  also  made  to  a  letter dated 13.10.20 04 again addressed to
\nJustice Thangaraj, in which, she has abused everyone by using filthy  language
\nincluding Judges of the High Court, Mrs.Sheela Rani Sungath, Health Secretary,
\nDr.Sundar  Devan,  I.A.S., the Hon’ble Chief Minister and others by using very
\nabusive and filthy language.  The said conduct on the part of  the  petitioner
\nwould reveal the real nature and character of the petitioner and severe action
\nhas to  be  taken against her for such vulgar and abusive behaviour.  The mere
\nfact that she belongs to a scheduled caste community and that she  happens  to
\nbe  a  lady  cannot  justify  her  behaviour and she cannot be let off without
\nappropriate action being taken against her.   Proper  investigation  has  been
\nconducted  by  the police and the authorities concerned and only after finding
\nthat there were no materials in her complaint,  no  further  action  had  been
\ntaken.   Learned  counsel  also referred to several authorities in support his
\nsubmission that such frivolous complaints should be dealt  with  strongly  and
\nthat such individuals cannot be allowed to go scot-free.\n<\/p>\n
        29.   Mr.A.L.Somayaji,  learned  Additional Advocate General appearing
\nfor the Government, referred to the various departmental proceedings initiated
\nagainst the petitioner much earlier to the present set of facts which arose on
\n19.9.2003 and would submit that the conduct of the petitioner was never normal
\nand she appears to have been  exploiting  the  fact  that  she  belongs  to  a
\nscheduled caste  community  and  that  she  happens to be a lady.  Though many
\nserious complaints have been made against her even earlier and  she  was  also
\nfound  guilty  of the charges, no serious action was taken against her only on
\nsympathetic grounds, which appear to be exploited now by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  In matters where investigation is sought for by the  C.B.I.,  the
\nCourt  cannot be guided by mere allegations alone and the petitioner should be
\nable to make out a prima facie case in favour of the said  allegations  before
\nthe High Court  directs  the C.B.I.  to investigate.  Reference is made to the
\njudgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  SECRETARY,  MINOR  IRRIGATION  &  RURAL
\nENGINEERING SERVICES Vs.  SAHNGOO RAM ARYA & ANOTHER (2002 (2) CTC 610).  Many
\nof  the  allegations  are proved to be false and frivolous and which should be
\nsufficient to throw out the complaints without any further investigation  vide
\nJudgment of  the  Supreme  Court  in  S.P.CHENGALVARAYA  NAIDU  Vs.  JAGANNATH
\n(1994-1-L.W.  21).\n<\/p>\n
        31.  In reply, Mr.S.Veeraraghavan, learned senior counsel representing
\nthe petitioner, chose to reiterate the submissions already made by him in  his
\nearlier arguments.    In  order  to disprove the contention of the respondents
\nthat many of the complaints have not been received by  the  Government\/Police,
\nthe petitioner  had produced postal acknowledgments.  He would also state that
\nthe scope of the writ petition is only for an investigation by an  independent
\nagency  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the Minister of the State Government is
\ninvolved.  At this stage, it will not be open to the Court to  state  anything
\nas  regards the truth or otherwise of the allegations and counter allegations.
\nAs regards the allegation that the petitioner was  indulging  in  abusive  and
\nfilthy  accusations  against  several persons and various authorities, learned
\ncounsel would state that some of the communications may reflect the anger  and
\ndesperation  of  the  petitioner  and  the only fact that she had used certain
\nharsh  expressions  cannot  disprove  the  basic  allegations  made   by   the
\npetitioner,  namely,  sexual  abuse against the fifth respondent and the other
\nrespondents.  Learned counsel refers to a series of judgments of  the  Supreme
\nCourt,  whereunder,  the  Supreme  Court  had  expressed  that  in  complaints
\ninvolving high dignitaries of the State Government, it was  always  desirable,
\nand  in  the  interest  of the respondents themselves, to submit themselves to
\ninvestigation by a Central Agency.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme  Court  in
\nMANIYERI MADHAVAN  Vs.   SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE (AIR 1994 SC 1033) in support
\nof his contention that for ordering C.B.I.   enquiry,  consent  of  the  State
\nGovernment  under  Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police establishment was not
\nnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
        33.  I  have  considered  the  submissions  of  both  sides  with  the
\nseriousness with which the issue requires to be dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
        34.   On  the  petitioner’s  side,  it  is  stated  that  she has been
\nsubjected to sexual  harassment  by  the  fifth  respondent  with  the  active
\ninvolvement  and  assistance of the Dean and orders of transfer were issued by
\nthe D.M.E.  at the instance of the fifth  respondent  and  that  her  repeated
\ncomplaints had absolutely no response from the authorities only because of the
\nreason  that  the fifth respondent is a Minister and she happens to be a widow
\nand belonging to Scheduled Caste community.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  In contrast, according to the  fifth  respondent  and  the  other
\nofficial  respondents,  the  petitioner  was  always given to such abusive and
\nfalse allegations against everyone she disagreed with and the present  vicious
\ncomplaints  about  the  fifth respondent and others have been made only with a
\nmotive to extricate herself from the  order  of  transfer  and  the  impending
\ndepartmental action for her improper and provocative behaviour.  The fact that
\nmany  proceedings  were  initiated  against her even earlier would expose such
\nqualities in her.  The Government and the Police had  properly  enquired  into
\nthe complaints  and  found  them  to be baseless.  Conceding her prayer, would
\nonly mean giving premium to an attitude of blatant exploitation  of  the  fact
\nthat a person happens to be a woman, that too belonging to a scheduled caste.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   There  can  be  no  doubt  over  the  position  that ordering of
\ninvestigation by C.B.I.  cannot be granted just for the asking  and  that  the
\npetitioner should  disclose at least some prima facie case.  But having regard
\nto the nature of this case, there is no possibility  of  recording  any  prima
\nfacie  satisfaction  of  the truth of the complaint for the simple reason that
\nthe nature of the complaint is such that the issues cannot be decided only  on
\nthe basis of affidavits and counter affidavits.  No conclusions can be arrived
\nat  unless  individuals  and  witnesses  concerned  are  directly examined and
\ncross-examined.  Prima facie satisfaction can be expected only in cases like a
\nmissing person ((1996) 7 SCC 20), allegations of torture (1995 Supp.  (3)  SCC\n<\/p>\n
736), large  scale  defalcation  of  public funds (AIR 1996 SC 1515).  In such
\ncases, the Supreme Court had ordered enquiry by  independent  agency  (C.B.I.)
\nand  prima  facie  satisfaction  was  available  in  the  very  nature  of the
\nallegations, namely, injuries on the person tortured in  the  custody  of  the
\npolice,  a  person  physically  missing  from  the  society  and  large  scale
\ndefalcation of funds which are available on record.  But in  a  case  of  this
\ntype where sexual abuse and torture being an issue which is personal and known
\nbetween  only  those  two  individuals,  prima  facie  satisfaction  cannot be
\nrecorded only on the basis of affidavits and counter  affidavits  without  any
\noral  evidence  being  taken  and watching the demeanor of the witnesses, etc.
\nTherefore, at this stage, it is not possible for  this  Court  to  record  any
\nfinding of prima facie satisfaction.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   In the said background, the only aspect I can possibly look into
\nis  whether  the  personalities  involved  is  such  that  it  would   require
\nindependent  investigation  by an agency unconnected with the State Government
\nover which the Minister will have no control.    The  issue  is  more  of  the
\nrequirement that justice should also appear to be done.  It is more a question
\nof  ensuring  public  confidence  in the investigation and its outcome and not
\nbecause the Court has no confidence in the local police  or  the  departmental
\nauthorities  who  have  already  come  to the conclusion that the complaint is
\nfalse.\n<\/p>\n
        38.  In STATE OF BIHAR Vs.  RANCHI  ZILA  SAMTA  PARTY  (AIR  1996  SC
\n1515),  the  allegation  related to large scale defalcation of public funds in
\nthe accounts of Animal Husbandry Department of the State Government.  The High
\nCourt took away the investigation from the State Police and  entrusted  it  to
\nthe C.B.I.  On appeal, the Supreme Court held as follows:
\n“7.     The  only  question  then  is  whether  this  is  a  fit  case for our
\ninterference under Article 136 of the Constitution?  The exercise of the power
\nunder Article 226 of the Constitution in a public interest litigation was  not
\nto give any advantage to political party or group of people, as apprehended by
\ncounsel for  the  appellants.    It  was  also not to cast a slur on the State
\npolice.  It was done  to  investigate  corruption  in  public  administration,
\nmisconduct   by   the   bureaucracy,  fabrication  of  official  records,  and
\nmisappropriation of public funds by an independent agency that  would  command
\npublic confidence.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the direction given
\nby  the  High  Court  appears  to  be  just  and  proper and calls for no real
\ninterference.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        39.  In PARAMJIT KAUR Vs.  STATE OF PUNJAB  ((1996)  7  SCC  20),  the
\nSupreme Court  was  concerned  with a case of kidnapping by local police.  The
\nSupreme Court held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“16.  Mr.M.L.Sarin, learned Advocate General, Punjab has  very  fairly  stated
\nthat  keeping  in  view  the  serious  allegations  levelled by the petitioner
\nagainst the officers\/officials of the  Punjab  Police,  it  would  be  in  the
\ninterest of justice that the investigation in this matter be handed over to an
\nindependent authority.    Even otherwise, in order to instil confidence in the
\npublic mind and to do justice to the petitioner and his  family  it  would  be
\nproper to  withdraw  the  investigation  from Punjab Police in this case.  We,
\ntherefore, direct the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation to appoint  an
\ninvestigation  team  headed  by a responsible officer to hold investigation in
\nthe kidnapping and whereabouts of Khalra.   We  further  direct  the  Director
\nGeneral  of  Police,  Punjab,  all  Punjab  Police  officers  concerned,  Home
\nSecretary and Chief Secretary, Punjab, to render all assistance  and  help  to
\nthe CBI in the investigation.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        40.  In R.S.SODHI  Vs.  STATE OF U.P.  (AIR 1994 SC 38), the issue was
\none of encounter death alleged to have been caused by the local police.    The
\nState Police took the stand that the State Government had taken all prompt and
\nproper  action  and  the  State  Government  should be allowed to complete its
\nfunction without interference by outside agency.  The  Supreme  Court,  though
\ndid  not  disagree  with the claim of the State Government that they had acted
\nproperly, yet, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“2.     We have examined the facts and circumstances leading to the filing  of
\nthe  petition  and  the  events  that  have  taken  place  after  the socalled
\nencounters.  Whether the loss of lives was on account of a genuine on  a  fake
\nencounter  is a matter which has to be inquired into and investigated closely.
\nWe, however, refrain from making any observation in that  behalf;  we  should,
\ntherefore,  not  be understood even remotely to be expressing any view thereon
\none way or the other.  We have perused the events that have taken place  since
\nthe  incidents  but  we  are refraining from entering upon the details thereof
\nlest it may prejudice any party but we think that since  the  accusations  are
\ndirected  against  the local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust
\nthe investigation  to  an  independent  agency  like  the  Central  Bureau  of
\nInvestigation  so  that  all concerned including the relatives of the deceased
\nmay feel assured that an independent agency is looking  into  the  matter  and
\nthat would  lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility.  However,
\nfaithfully the local police may carry out the  investigation,  the  same  will
\nlack credibility since the allegations are against them.  It is only with that
\nin  mind  that we having thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in
\nthe interest of justice entrust the investigation to  the  Central  Bureau  of
\nInvestigation   forthwith   and   we  so  hope  that  it  would  complete  the
\ninvestigation at an early date so that those involved in the  occurrences  one
\nway or the  other  may  be  brought  to  book.   We direct accordingly.  In so
\nordering we mean no reflection on the credibility of either the  local  police
\nor  the State Government but we have been guided by the larger requirements of
\njustice.  The writ petition and the review petition stand disposed of by  this
\norder.  ”\n<\/p>\n
        41.   The above three cases make it very clear that the Supreme Court,
\nwithout recording  any  finding  of  prima  facie  satisfaction,  yet  ordered
\ninvestigation by  the  C.B.I.    only on the basis of the nature of issues and
\npersonalities involved and the need  to  ensure  impartial  investigation  and
\nconfidence in the minds of the public.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  Therefore, in this case, my line of thinking is as follows:
\n        Here is  a  case  in  which a State Minister is implicated.  The State
\npolice, on their own investigation, had already come to  a  concluded  opinion
\nthat the complaint is false.  Some of the complaints for which acknowledgments
\nhave  been  produced had not been specifically dealt with by the police either
\nin their investigation or in the counter affidavit.  The Director  of  Medical
\nEducation  against  whom  certain  specific  allegations have been made by the
\npetitioner, in her affidavit, has  not  chosen  to  file  a  separate  counter
\naffidavit.   The joint counter affidavit filed by respondents-3 and 4 does not
\ndeal with specific allegations against the fourth  respondent  to  the  effect
\nthat  she issued transfer orders only at the instance of the fifth respondent,
\nand certain other allegations contained in the details of  the  complaints  in
\nparagraph 19  of the affidavit.  Even the counter affidavit filed by the Dean\/
\nsixth respondent is not satisfactory and  does  not  deal  with  the  specific
\nallegations  against  him  in  paragraphs  7, 8, 10 and 19 of the petitioner’s
\naffidavit.  The police also has to explain as to why  the  complaints  by  the
\npetitioner were  not  registered.  It is true that a telegram does not require
\nto be registered.  But, according to the petitioner, she has given  complaints
\nsubsequently, both  in  person and by post.  Certain acknowledgments have been
\nproduced before the Court.  If it is true, then the police has to explain  why
\nsuch  complaints  were  not registered, as required under Section 154, Cr.P.C.
\nTherefore, there are certain aspects which require to be  examined  and  dealt
\nwith,  even  apart  from the conclusions arrived at by the police on their own
\ninvestigation.   Such  an  investigation  has  to  be  dealt   with   by   the
\ninvestigation  agency  in a detailed and comprehensive manner and the question
\nis whether the State Police can be asked to do it.  The answer has  to  be  in
\nthe  negative,  since the State police had already taken a positive stand that
\nthe complaints are false.  Even ignoring the fact that  the  fifth  respondent
\nhappens  to be a Minister, I would have reposed confidence in the State police
\nand would have directed them to make a fresh and comprehensive  investigation,
\nif only the police had taken a stand in their counter affidavit that they have
\nan  open  mind and are prepared to consider and investigate all aspects of the
\npetitioner’s complaint.  On the contrary,  they  have  expressed  a  concluded
\nopinion  against  the  petitioner  leaving no other alternative to this Court,
\nexcept to entrust the matter to a different agency.\n<\/p>\n
        43.  It is true that Mr.Jothi was able to show several features of the
\nconduct of the petitioner as suffering from impulsive, abusive  and  motivated
\nbehaviour.   But  that  alone  cannot  lead to rejecting her complaint without
\nproper investigation or enquiry.  This Court has no means  of  coming  to  any
\ndefinite  conclusion  only  on the basis of affidavits and counter affidavits.
\nTherefore, her complaint has to be independently  dealt  with  and  should  be
\ntaken  up  for  further  action  if  there  is  truth  and  thrown  out if the
\nallegations are found to be false.  In the said background,  the  best  course
\nappears  to  be  to  entrust the enquiry to a third party investigation agency
\nmainly for the purpose of ensuring public  confidence,  bearing  in  mind  the
\njudgments of  the  Supreme Court, as mentioned above.  But at the same time, I
\nam inclined to hold that C.B.I.  is not the only  authority  which  should  be
\nassigned to do  it  at least for two reasons.  Firstly, the C.B.I.  is already
\noverburdened with work and they are already complaining that they do not  have
\nsufficient  staff  and  hands  and  unable  to  comply  with  the  time frame,
\nconsidering that in recent times, they  have  been  assigned  with  many  such
\ninvestigations by the Courts.\n<\/p>\n
        44.  Secondly,  sexual  abuse  is  an  issue  which  could  be  better
\nentrusted  to a body or panel of experienced individuals and persons who would
\nhave better exposure to the law of human rights and gender sensitiveness.   In
\nfact, that is how the Supreme Court had viewed the issue in VISHAKA Vs.  STATE
\nOF RAJASTHAN  (AIR  1997 SC 3011) and also in subsequent pronouncements.  What
\nwas contemplated in Vishaka’s case was to set up a Complaints Committee.    In
\nfact,  the Supreme Court had laid down that the Complaints Committee should be
\nheaded by a woman and half of the committee should consist of women.  Even  if
\nthat  may  not be possible in each and every case, it is at least desirable to
\nentrust the enquiry to an experienced body\/Committee of  persons.    In  fact,
\neven  in the recent Bill proposed by the Government, namely, Sexual Harassment
\nof Women  at  Work  Place  (Prevention  &  Redressal)  Bill,  2004,  the  Bill
\ncontemplates investigation and enquiry only by a Complaints Committee.  In the
\ncase of  PURNIA  SHARMA  Vs.    UNIVERSITY  OF BOMBAY, a Division Bench of the
\nBombay High Court, while disposing of W.P.No.2192  of  2004  dated  24.8.2004,
\nheld   that   the  action  taken  by  the  College  in  appointing  Mr.Justice
\nA.C.Agrawal, a retired Judge of the High Court to enquire into the matter  was
\npr oper.  However, as subsequently the University came forward with a decision
\nto  appoint  a  Committee  for holding an enquiry into the complaint of sexual
\nharassment, the Division Bench took note  of  the  said  offer  and  requested
\nJustice A.C.Agrawal not to proceed with the enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
        45.  Therefore, in cases  of  complaints  of  sexual  harassment,  the
\npresent  trend is to assign the enquiry to a Committee of independent persons.
\nConsidering that the allegations of sexual abuse in  this  case  is  not  only
\nagainst  the  fifth respondent, but also against the sixth respondent who is a
\nGovernment servant, it is desirable  that  the  enquiry  is  conducted  by  an
\nindependent  body\/Committee  of  persons and the Government can be directed to
\ntake further action on the findings of the report of the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
        46.  It is true that any such enquiry is bound to be  painful  to  any
\nperson who may be falsely implicated.  But one has to face such situations and
\nrealities  and  the  rigour  of  law  and  when  he  comes  out cleared of the
\nallegations, he should feel happy.\n<\/p>\n
        47.  While parting with this case, I would be failing in my duty if  I
\ndo not deal with one aspect of the conduct of the petitioner.  The allegations
\nnow  made  by  her  against the fifth respondent and others may not may not be
\ntrue, which should be dealt in accordance with law, as pointed out above.  But
\nthere is no justification for the abusive and  provocative  behaviour  of  the
\npetitioner.   If  one reads some of the letters especially dated 27.9.2004 and
\n23.10.2004, both addressed to Mr.Justice  Thangaraj,  Chairman  of  the  State
\nHuman  Rights  Forum, it is seen that she had used abusive and filthy language
\nagainst some of the Judges of the High Court because they did not  oblige  her
\nwith  favourable  orders  and  against Mr.Justice Thangaraj himself and making
\nsarcastic and uncharitable remarks about the Hon’ble Chief  Minister  and  the
\nthen  Health  Secretary,  who  are  themselves women, and against a few I.A.S.
\nOfficers.  Some of the expressions are very vulgar and not  printable.    Even
\nafter  this was repeatedly pointed out by Mr.Jothi as reflecting the character
\nof the petitioner, there was no attempt on the part of the  petitioner  either
\nto withdraw the said letters or even to file an affidavit tendering an apology
\nfor such  conduct.  Assuming that all her allegations against fifth respondent
\nare true and she  was  upset  that  no  immediate  action  was  taken  on  her
\ncomplaint, that is no justification for behaving in such a fashion.  She is an
\neducated  and  experienced  Doctor and knows how the official machinery has to
\nmove and petitions before Courts and the Government can be dealt with only  in
\na manner  known  to  law  and  not according to her whims and fancies.  On the
\ncontrary, when things do not move according to her wishes, she abuses everyone
\nincluding women and dignitaries belonging  to  her  own  community  in  filthy
\nlanguage.   She  would  not  even  condescend  to withdraw such allegations or
\napologise when the counsel for respondent had expressed his pain  and  anguish
\nat such behaviour.   One wonders what is the cause for such an attitude.  Does
\nshe think that being a woman or belonging to Scheduled Caste provide  her  any
\nimmunity?   This  is  not  the  freedom or equality of caste and sex for which
\ngreat reformers like Periyar E.V.R.  or  Dr.B.R.Ambedkar  or  Poet  Subramanya
\nBharathi fought  for  relentlessly.  It is high time that she and her advisors
\nrealise that if Varnashrama dharma and gender chauvinism are bad  and  unjust,
\nit  would  be  equally  so applying them on the reverse direction, which would
\nonly result in and justify  retaliation.    Such  chauvinistic  outbursts  are
\nusually  resorted to in recent times not from any social angle in the interest
\nof their gender or caste but only for personal and selfish reasons and  gains.
\nIf  anyone  is  really interested in the upliftment of downtrodden communities
\nand welfare of women,  they  should  discourage  such  tendencies.    Yet,  in
\nproviding  relief  to  the  petitioner  in the writ petition, I have chosen to
\nignore the attitude of the petitioner with the idea that any feeling of  anger
\non the part of the Court should not deny relief to the petitioner to which she
\nmay be otherwise entitled to.  The petitioner is severely warned not to repeat
\nsuch  reprehensible  conduct in future failing which, she will not be entitled
\nto any relief as contemplated hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
        48.  Now coming to the constitution of a Committee, I am  inclined  to
\nfeel that it would be appropriate to request the following individuals to take
\nup the assignment, hold a comprehensive enquiry and submit their report to the
\nState Government:\n<\/p>\n
1.  Mr.Justice M.Maruthamuthu (Chairman)
\nNew No.21 (14) Aspiran Garden,
\n1st Street
\nChennai-600 010.\n<\/p>\n
Phone:  26445323  <\/p>\n
2.  Mr.Rosanlal Handa
\nRetired Director General of Police
\nNo.42, Block-I<\/p>\n
Near Chinthamani Supermarket
\nAnna Nagar East
\nChennai-600 102.\n<\/p>\n
3.  Ms.A.Arulmozhi
\nAdvocate
\n19, 2nd Trust Main Road
\nMandavelipakkam
\nChennai-600 028.\n<\/p>\n
        49.  I am inclined to give the following directions:\n<\/p>\n
(1)     The  Government is directed to fix a proper venue in consultation with
\nMr.Justice  Maruthamuthu,  the  Chairman  and  provide   all   infrastructural
\nfacilities including a shorthand Steno-typist.\n<\/p>\n
(2)     The Government is directed to file typed sets in triplicate containing\n<\/p>\n
(a)  all  the  pleadings of both sides in the writ petition and ( b) copies of
\nall documents on  which  Government  relies.    Likewise,  the  petitioner  is
\ndirected  to  file a typed set in triplicate containing all materials on which
\nthey choose to rely on.  Any further affidavits, if necessary, may be filed by
\nboth sides.  Both sides are directed to comply with this requirement within  a
\nperiod of two weeks.\n<\/p>\n
(3)     The Committee may also take oral evidence as the parties may choose to
\ntender and also be permitted to cross-examine.\n<\/p>\n
(4)     The  enquiry  being only a substitute for investigative process, shall
\nbe open only to parties concerned and their counsel alone.  No  third  parties
\nshall be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
(5)     The  Committee  is  requested to conclude the enquiry and submit their
\nReport  to  the  Chief  Secretary  to  the  Government,  for  further  action,
\npreferably on  or  before  1st  of September, 2005.  The Government shall take
\nfurther action depending on the outcome of the report.
\n(6) The Chairman shall be paid Rs.25,000\/- per month and the Members shall  be
\npaid  Rs.20,000\/-  each  per  month, by the Government, till the submission of
\ntheir report to the Government.\n<\/p>\n
(7)     All parties shall ensure full and prompt cooperation to the  Committee
\nfor early disposal without seeking any adjournment of the hearings.\n<\/p>\n
        50.   It  is  made  clear as pointed out above, the entrustment of the
\nenquiry before an independent Committee is not on the basis of any prima facie
\nsatisfaction of the allegations against the fifth  respondent.    I  have  not
\nrendered any finding on the merits of the mutual contentions.  Such an enquiry
\nis ordered  mainly  for  two  reasons.   Firstly, the State Police had already
\nexpressed their views and conclusions categorically against the petitioner and
\nhence there is no scope  for  asking  them  to  take  up  the  enquiry  again.
\nSecondly,  considering  the  personalities involved, it is necessary to ensure
\npublic confidence in the enquiry into the allegations.\n<\/p>\n
        51.  The Committee is also requested to ignore  any  observation  made
\nabove  in  this  order  either for or against any of the parties but to render
\ntheir findings only on the basis of the materials before them and on their own
\nindependent appreciation, without reference to  any  of  the  observations  as
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
        52.   The writ petition is disposed subject to the above observations.
\nConnected W.P.M.P.No.44047 of 2004 is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
ksv<\/p>\n
To:\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary
\nHealth & Family Welfare Department
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\nFort St.  George
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Commissioner of Police
\nGreater Chennai, Egmore
\nChennai-8.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Director
\nMedical & Rural Health Services
\nDMS Compound
\nChennai-600 006.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Director of Medical Education
\nKilpauk, Chennai-600 010.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Regional Director
\nCentral Bureau of Investigation
\nEVK Sampath Building
\nChennai-6.\n<\/p>\n
6.  Mr.Justice M.Maruthamuthu
\nNew No.21 (14) Aspiran Garden,
\n1st Street
\nChennai-600 010.\n<\/p>\n
7.  Mr.Rosanlal Handa
\nRetired Director General of Police
\nNo.42, Block-I
\nNear Chinthamani Supermarket
\nAnna Nagar East
\nChennai-600 102.\n<\/p>\n
8.  Ms.A.Arulmozhi
\nAdvocate
\n19, 2nd Trust Main Road
\nMandavelipakkam
\nChennai-600 028.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The Chief Secretary
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu
\nFort St.  George
\nChennai-600 009.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10\/05\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM W.P.No.36690 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.44047 of 2004 Dr.C.Gomathi .. Petitioner -Vs- 1. Government of Tamil Nadu represented by the Secretary Health & Family Welfare Department Fort St. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\"},\"wordCount\":8101,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\",\"name\":\"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005","datePublished":"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005"},"wordCount":8101,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005","name":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-05-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-09T21:02:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-c-gomathi-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-may-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.C.Gomathi vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 10 May, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44748"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44748\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}