Madras HC issues guidelines to prevent police harassment on Rippling co-founder’s plea

Bengaluru: The Madras high court has laid down a set of general guidelines to ensure that citizens are not harassed by the police under the guise of investigation, underscoring the need for procedural safeguards in criminal inquiries.

“This court, exercising its power under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), normally would not interfere with the investigation conducted by a police officer. Nevertheless, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation when such matters are brought to its notice,” stated a bench of justice GK Ilanthiraiyan.

The guidelines were issued by the judge in an order while hearing a petition filed by software firm Rippling co-founder Prasanna Sankaranarayanan, who alleged that the police had been harassing him at the behest of his estranged wife.

An X thread went viral earlier this week where Sankaranarayanan accused his wife of having filed false cases in a bid to abduct their son and making false allegations of him being a sexual predator and being charged in a prostitution case in the United States.

He contended that the police were arbitrarily interfering in a personal dispute and had repeatedly attempted to enter his hotel room and vacation rental in Chennai between March 7 and 12, in an effort to take his son away from him. Represented by senior advocates Geeta Luthra and A Ramesh, he further claimed that the police had harassed his mother and a friend in Bengaluru, pressuring them to convince him to hand over the child.

Taking cognisance of these concerns, the high court directed the Tamil Nadu police not to harass Sankaranarayanan and, while disposing of his petition on March 27, laid down broad principles to ensure that the police do not misuse their authority. The court’s detailed order was released on Friday night.

The guidelines issued by the court aim to regulate police conduct and provide clear directions on how investigations should be conducted without infringing on citizens’ rights.

The high court mandated that each time a person named in a criminal complaint, or any witness is summoned, the police must issue a written summons under Section 179 of the BNSS. The summons must specify the date and time for the individual’s appearance before the police for inquiry or investigation.

Emphasising on proper documentation of proceedings, the court ordered that the minutes of the inquiry must be recorded in the general diary or station diary of the police station concerned. This measure ensures transparency and accountability in police procedures.

To prevent harassment, the court explicitly directed that police officers must refrain from harassing individuals who are called for inquiry or investigation. “The police officer shall refrain from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/ investigation,” the order stated.

The guidelines laid down in the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh (014) concerning the conduct of preliminary inquiries and registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) must be strictly followed.

It noted that the BNSS already provides police officers with sufficient discretion to determine when a formal FIR should be registered. However, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and in accordance with legal safeguards.

Sankaranarayanan had moved the high court on March 24, urging it to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS to direct the police to cease their alleged harassment. His petition detailed how the Chennai police had intervened in a personal dispute between him and his estranged wife, despite the matter being of a civil nature.