Santhanam panel’s legality questioned

A section of lawyers has questioned the legal validity of the Governor-appointed one-man commission, led by retired IAS officer R. Santhanam, to conduct an inquiry into the audiotape scandal involving an alleged attempt to lure college students into carrying out sexual favours for Madurai Kamaraj University officials.

D. Hariparanthaman, retired judge of the Madras High Court, said the office of the Governor should not have constituted the commission in the first place, as the Governor was mentioned in the audiotape.

“We are not saying that the Governor’s office is complicit. However, the very mention of the Governor in the audio[tape] demands that his office stays out of the entire enquiry process,” he said.

Henri Tiphagne, an advocate and the executive director of the Madurai-based non-governmental organisation People’s Watch, said the one-man commission had no legally tenable powers since it was not formed under the Commissions of Inquiry (CoI) Act, as had been the case with commissions like the one investigating the death of late Chief Minister Jayalalithaa.

“The CoI Act gives a number of powers, including [the power] to summon people and receive evidence on affidavits. Importantly, if someone is found to have given false information to the commission wilfully, the person can be punished,” he said.

Echoing his view, U. Nirmala Rani, senior advocate, said the commission had no effective powers and it can at best act like a fact-finding mission by a non-governmental organisation.

‘Laws bypassed’

“Mr. Santhanam might have sought permission from jail authorities to investigate those imprisoned so far in the case — P. Nirmala Devi, V. Murugan and S. Karuppasamy. However, when people are in judicial custody, one has to approach the court to inquire them. If he [Mr. Santhanam] is allowed [to do that] today, can the CB-CID police, which is investigating the case in parallel, be allowed to do the same [thing] tomorrow?” asked S. Vanchinathan, advocate and State coordinator of the Peoples Rights Protection Centre.

Mr. Tiphagne pointed out that two key legislations — the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act and the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations — have completely been ignored in the entire issue.