SUDIPTA LENKA versus STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 12-03-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 693 
SUDIPTA LENKA 
v. 
STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 
(Writ petition (Civil) No. 957 of 2013) 
MARCH 12, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOi AND 
N.V. RAMANA, JJ] 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: 
Art. 32 - Writ petition seeking transfer of investigation of 
case to CBI - Sexual harassment of a contractual Government 
teacher - Victim stated to have been set ablaze resulting into 
her death - Held: Power of constitutional court to transfer 
investigation to CBI should be exercised only in situations 
befitting, judged on the touchstone of high public interest and 
the need to maintain the Rule of Law -Insofar as the facts and 
circumstances following the death of the deceased is 
concerned, in view of the charge-sheet filed and the 
departmental action taken against the erring officials, there 
is no necessity of any further direction in the matter, at this 
stage - As regards the events preceding the death of victim, 
the same, prima facie, disclose some amount of laxity and 
indifference - Therefore, even while noticing that disciplinary 
action has been taken against certain officials, State 
Government should hold a detailed administrative inquiry to 
ascertain whether any other official or authority, at any level, 
is responsible for not attending to the grievances raised by 
the deceased and to take necessary action in the matter 
accordingly - Public interest litigation. 
A Siksha Sahayika (contractual government teacher) 
in Odisha was set ablaze on 27.10.2013. She was 
removed to the hospital where she succumbed to the 
burn injuries. Referring to the several newspaper reports 
693 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A published with regard to the incident, the petitioner, a 
young law student filed the instant petition under Art. 32 
of the Constitution of India stating the details that led to 
the incident, i.e., the deceased was sexually harassed by 
a Sub Inspector of Schools; she lodged a complaint 
B before the local police on 18.07 .2013, and forwarded 
petitions to various authorities and institutions of the 
State; some family members of the accused threatened 
the deceased to withdraw her complaint; the deceased 
lodged yet another complaint with the police on 
c 19.09.2013. The petitioner further claimed that no steps 
were taken by the authorities concerned to provide the 
deceased with any security; no action was taken against 
the accused and no steps were taken to transfer the 
deceased from her place of posting. The petitioner 
0 alleged that perpetrators of the crime enjoyed political 
patronage and the accused had close proximity to a 
Member of Parliament and also a Minister. The petitioner 
sought a direction for the transfer of the investigation of 
the case involving the death of the said Siksha Sahayika 
from the State agency to the Central Bureau of 
E Investigation and the monitoring of such investigation by 
the Supreme Court. 
The State Government filed a counter affidavit stating 
that on the basis of the complaint dated 18.7.2013 filed 
F by the deceased against the said Sub Inspector of 
Schools, Case No. 60 dated 18.07.2013 u/s 354/409 IPC 
was registered; that the complaints lodged by the 
deceased against the family members of the accused 
were acted upon and Case No. 62 dated 19.07.2013 and 
G No. 70 dated 16.08.2013 were registered against them; 
that in respect of the incident involving the death of the 
deceased, Case No. 92 dated 28.10.2013 was registered 
and the said Sub Inspector of Schools was arrested. 
Further, the dismissal from service of the lnspector-in-
H Charge and an Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police 
SUDIPTA LENKA v. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS. 695 
Station concerned, two officials of the Education A 
Department and also the accused were highlighted as 
incidents of consequential action taken by the State, 
besides the ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to the 
parents of the deceased. It was also evident that no 
material could be unearthed in the investigation of the B 
case to show the involvement of any person, wielding 
political or bureaucratic power and influence, in 
connection with the incident that had occurred. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
were: (i) whether after filing of charge-sheet u/s 302/1208 C 
IPC against the accused and keeping open the 
investigation u/s 173 (8) Cr.P .C. there would be any 
justification to entrust further investigation of the case to 
the Central Bureau of Investigation; an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.