Latest news with #TamilNaduProhibitionofHarassmentofWomenAct
Indian Express
6 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
Ahead of 2026 election, how can DMK retain credibility and control the narrative?
The verdict in the Anna University sexual assault case — the Mahila Court sentenced 37-year-old biryani vendor Gnanasekaran to life imprisonment without remission for 30 years — marks a significant moment of judicial clarity. Examining forensic evidence, including mobile data that proved the accused had kept his phone on 'flight mode' for over two hours during the crime, the court dismissed speculation of multiple perpetrators. In fact, the judge found Gnanasekaran guilty under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Information Technology (IT) Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act (1998) — a verdict arrived at without political interference or procedural delay. However, legal closure rarely halts political rumour. Even as the public prosecutor warned that continued speculation could amount to contempt of court, the phrase 'Yaar Andha Sir?' ('Who is that sir?') has already entered political discourse, largely due to insinuations by AIADMK leaders and an opportunistic digital echo chamber. The truth, it seems, is not what is proved in court but what sticks in public memory. Ironically, the DMK government, often accused of political micro-management, allowed this case to move swiftly through an autonomous legal process. In a state where past sexual assault cases, like the Pollachi scandal, were delayed or allegedly mishandled, notably under the AIADMK's watch, this is not insignificant. Nevertheless, the opposition has deftly turned the DMK's early assertion that there was only one accused into a point of political attack, calling it 'prejudgement' and 'potential cover-up'. This episode reveals the broader question facing the DMK as it heads toward the 2026 assembly elections: How does the party retain credibility and control the narrative? The DMK's record over the last four years is, in many ways, better than its predecessors. Schemes centred around school-going children, women, and the youth have received appreciation. Other schemes like Illam Thedi Kalvi, Makkalai Thedi Maruthuvam, and grievance redressal initiatives have improved state–citizen interaction, especially in rural Tamil Nadu. The government's efforts in resisting NEET, symbolically potent even if legally ineffective, have bolstered its pro-social justice image. Investments in government schools, Primary Health Centres (PHCs), and digital governance platforms also signal policy intent that is not merely rhetorical. However, the government's challenges are far from trivial. Tamil Nadu's graduate unemployment (16.78 per cent) remains uncomfortably high, and industrial job creation has failed to keep up with expectations. Chennai's chronic flooding and waste management failures have not seen systemic solutions, and the DMK's urban governance, while more responsive than before, lacks long-term vision. Add to this the unfolding TASMAC controversy, a potentially damaging scandal involving liquor procurement irregularities and alleged revenue manipulation. For many Tamil households, especially among the working poor, TASMAC is more than a public sector enterprise; it is a source of everyday distress. Women-led protests and growing anger around alcoholism have sharpened the moral critique of the government's alleged role in enabling addiction under the guise of revenue generation. Besides, actor-turned-politician Vijay's debut through Tamizhaga Vetri Kazhagam seems to have disrupted the Dravidian binary in a way few thought possible. Unlike fringe players like Seeman's NTK, Vijay carries an immense fan base and strong recall across age groups. His youth appeal and calculated distance from Hindutva politics make him formidable. Vijay has carefully crafted his messaging: anti-corruption, pro-education and socially inclusive. By not aligning with either Dravidian major or the BJP, he is attempting to occupy the unclaimed centre, a space attractive to urban, educated, and politically ambivalent first-time voters. If TVK contests all 234 seats, it may not win many outright, but it could split votes in enough constituencies to damage both DMK and AIADMK prospects. Meanwhile, the AIADMK is trying to regain lost ground under Edappadi K Palaniswami. While the party remains factionalised without a charismatic face, it still commands a sizeable rural base. Its attempts to link the Anna University case to a larger narrative of DMK complacency may not be grounded in evidence, but they are politically shrewd. In alliance with the BJP, the AIADMK hopes to capitalise on any anti-incumbency sentiment. However, this strategy remains fraught with risk: Tamil Nadu's electorate have consistently displayed a deep-rooted scepticism towards the BJP, viewing it as hostile to Tamil identity and interests, a perception that remains firmly embedded in the state's political consciousness. What must the DMK do, then? First, it must address the TASMAC issue head-on through transparency, audits, action against corruption, and a clear plan to reduce reliance on alcohol revenue. Second, the party must move beyond legacy rhetoric toward forward-looking governance. Digital skills training, green jobs, women's safety, and urban renewal should define its new language of social justice. Most crucially, it must seize control of the narrative. Though legally closed, the Anna University case remains a battle of perception. If the DMK stays reactive, allowing its record to be drowned out by slogans and suspicion, it risks ceding the larger electoral script. In Tamil Nadu, politically sharp and emotionally engaged voters expect more than performance; they demand trust, which is earned constantly. The DMK seems to have a strong chance in 2026. Stalin remains a credible leader, and the party's organisation is solid. But election results depend not just on incumbency or ideology but on timing, tone, and trust. The path to Fort St. George lies as much through governance as through the people's imagination. And in that realm, the verdict is never final. It is constantly being rewritten, tweet by tweet, poster by poster, speech by speech. The court may have ruled on Gnanasekaran. But in the court of public opinion, the DMK must still argue its case every single day, until the ballot speaks. The writer is an education consultant and political analyst based in Bengaluru
Hans India
03-06-2025
- Hans India
Anna Varsity Case: Rape convict gets 30 years in jail
Chennai: A Mahila Court in Chennai on Monday sentenced A Gnanasekaran, the sole accused in the 2024 Anna University campus rape case, to life imprisonment without the possibility of remission. The court ordered that he must serve a minimum of 30 years in prison and imposed a fine of Rs 90,000 on him. Mahila Court judge M Rajalakshmi handed down the sentence four days after convicting Gnanasekaran on 11 charges, including rape, abduction, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Information Technology Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.
Hindustan Times
03-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
Anna University sexual assault convict jailed for 30 years
A local court in Chennai on Monday sentenced a 37-year-old man, convicted for sexually assaulting a 19-year-old student of Anna University last year, to 30 years in prison without remission. Mahila court judge M Rajalakshmi pronounced the sentence in respect of each of the 11 charges proved by the prosecution and said the sentences will run concurrently. 'He will not be entitled to any privileges or early release,' public prosecutor Mary Jeyanthi told reporters after the verdict. 'His phone is the weapon of this case,' Jeyanthi said. 'We submitted to the court a report from the forensic science lab which had analysed his phone activities on the day of the crime and concluded that he put his phone on flight mode. An official from his network provider testified in court that he received no calls post 6.29pm on December 23 until he received an SMS at 8.58pm clearly stating his phone was in airplane mode during this time.' Earlier on Wednesday, she convicted Gnanasekaran finding him guilty of charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. In December 2024, Gnanasekaran, who worked as a vendor near the university, broke into the campus and assaulted the student. The First Information Report in the case said that Gnanasekaran forced the student to perform 'sexual acts'. The student told police that Gnanasekaran emerged from behind after having recorded a video of her with her friend on his mobile phone. He threatened to leak the video and send it to her father and the college authorities. Gnanasekaran threatened and first physically assaulted the student's friend, a third-year student. The student urged Gnanasekaran not to leak the video. Gnanasekaran took her friend away, asking her to wait at the same place. He then took the 19-year-old to a secluded spot about 200 metres away and sexually assaulted her. Gnanasekaran also took photos of her ID card and father's number and asked her to keep meeting him, failing which he said he would release her videos. Gnanasekaran was arrested on December 24 last year. However, the FIR of the case was downloaded from the CCTNS website of Tamil Nadu police and broadcast by certain sections of the media which created a furore. Later, the Madras high court transferred the investigation of the case to a special investigation team, which also probed the FIR leak. The SIT filed a charge sheet in February before a magistrate court. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Mahila Court. The judge, while convicting Gnanasekaran, said that he sought a lenient sentence claiming he was the sole bread-winner of the family and prosecution objected to it and sought maximum punishment. The ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), which was under fire over Gnanasekaran's alleged links with it, hailed the speedy verdict within five months, saying it showed the government's commitment to protecting women. DMK leader RS Bharathi said Gnanasekaran was arrested within 24 hours after the crime was reported, a charge sheet was filed within 60 days on February 24 and the police gathered strong evidence and the court found the accused guilty within five months. He said the government will not tolerate crimes against women. Opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader Edappadi Palaniswami said its state-wide protests led to the speedy conviction in the case. He added that some important questions remained unanswered and vowed to ensure that others involved in the crime were also punished. The AIADMK campaigned for justice in the case, asking: 'Who is that, Sir?' In her complaint to the police, the student said that Gnanasekaran spoke to someone over the phone, addressing him as 'sir' and pretending to take instructions from him. Chennai police chief, A Arun, clarified that Gnanasekaran had put his phone on airplane mode and pretended to speak to someone, referring to him as 'sir' to intimidate the student. He said there was no other suspect in the case. The AIADMK continued the 'sir campaign' and brought placards to the state assembly asking: 'Who is that, sir?' The AIADMK maintained Gnanasekaran was linked with the DMK, citing his photos posing with DMK ministers. Chief minister MK Stalin clarified that Gnanasekaran was a DMK supporter but not a member and promised justice in the case. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K Annamalai, who whipped himself six times to protest against the assault, accused the Tamil Nadu police of leaking the student's identity. He released pictures of the accused posing with deputy chief minister Udhayanidhi Stalin and minister M Subramanian. He called Gnanasekaran a repeat offender and a DMK functionary. The DMK denied the claim, saying anyone can click a picture with government functionaries. AIADMK and BJP workers, including former Telangana governor Tamilisai Soundararajan, protested outside the campus and district collectorates. The assault forced Anna University to deploy more security personnel and CCTVs on campus to strengthen security. The police and the university also conducted a joint security audit. The Madras high court took a suo motu cognisance of the case and directed the state government to pay ₹25 lakh compensation to the 19-year-old student and Anna University to sponsor her education for failing to ensure her safety. It also appointed an all-women Special Investigation Team to probe the assault.
Time of India
22-05-2025
- Time of India
Temple priest held for sexually harassing flower vendor
Madurai: The Madurai city police have arrested a priest for repeatedly sexually harassing and threatening a 37-year-old woman flower vendor near a temple. According to police, the accused, R Sivakameshwaran was a priest at a temple in Madurai city, while the 37-year-old woman was selling flowers. Police said that over the past two years, Sivakameshwaran had been sexually harassing the woman by contacting her over phone and molesting her whenever she came to the temple. When the woman refused the priest's advances, the accused disrupted her flower-selling business. Unable to bear this, she filed a complaint with the police last month. But, a case was not registered after the priest assured that that he will not interfere in her business again. On May 17, when the two were near the temple, Sivakameshwaran threatened to humiliate the woman and used obscene language for rejecting his sexual advances. The woman filed a complaint with the Southgate police, based on which a case was registered under various sections of BNS and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act (TNPHW Act). Sivakameshwaran was arrested and remanded in judicial custody on Wednesday.
Hans India
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
Supreme Court Criticizes Tamil Actor-Politician For Derogatory Post Against Journalist
The Supreme Court delivered a sharp rebuke to Tamil actor and politician SV Shekher on Friday regarding his sharing of derogatory content about a female journalist, describing it as a "nasty campaign" that directly assaulted her dignity. Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, while allowing Shekher temporary exemption from surrender pending further hearings, questioned his motives and highlighted his failure to offer a sincere apology. "We are surprised you are pursuing this. It was a nasty campaign against a woman. You attacked her dignity directly, in such a brazen and abrupt manner," the bench stated firmly. The justices also expressed suspicion that Shekher might have harassed other women previously but faced consequences this time because a journalist association confronted him. Shekher's legal representative, Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, claimed his client forwarded the message without reading it and removed it within an hour. The counsel requested four weeks to approach the complainant with an unconditional apology, which the court granted while exempting Shekher from surrender until the next hearing. The case originated in 2018 when Shekher shared content with allegedly offensive remarks about a female journalist, prompting widespread condemnation and a complaint from a journalist association. Authorities filed charges against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. A special court convicted Shekher in February 2023, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment plus a fine. Though he appealed, the Madras High Court upheld the conviction in January 2024, while suspending the sentence for 90 days to allow his Supreme Court appeal.
