Cash-for-Sex Scandal: HC tells petitioner to move Magistrate

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation seeking forensic analysis of two viral audio clips allegedly involving a senior IPS officer in an alleged cash-for-sex scandal, directing the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry made it clear that the remedy lay before the Magistrate. It also clarified that the petitioner would be free to approach the high court again in case the Magistrate failed to act.

The PIL, filed by Supreme Court advocate Nikhil Saraf through counsel Amit Sharma, had sought an independent forensic probe into the audio clips and disclosure of the officer’s identity, allegedly named by a woman constable during her arrest under the NDPS Act. The petitioner had also annexed material purportedly pointing towards selective inaction and systemic failures within the state police machinery.

The matter had earlier come up before a Bench headed by Chief Justice Nagu on May 5, when the State of Punjab was directed to file an affidavit in response. Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Salil Sabhlok — who represented both the Punjab government and the DGP — opposed the maintainability of the petition. He contended that the audio clips were “inaudible, doctored and unverified”, and that the petition had been filed without exhausting alternative remedies.

Sabhlok also asserted that the officer in question was being targeted through motivated litigation, and informed the court that the complaint was still pending before the DGP.

Refuting the claim, Advocate Amit Sharma submitted that the affidavit “appeared to have been filed without even reading the petition”, and that the State’s reply failed to engage with specific material on record, including judicial findings on the breakdown of criminal enforcement and prior directions passed by the high court itself.

“This petition is not about any single officer,” Sharma argued. “It brings to light a larger pattern of silence, complicity and selective protection.”

He drew the court’s attention to annexures, including earlier high court orders highlighting delay in registration of FIRs in rape and murder cases, disregard for judicial directions and imposition of costs on the officer now at the centre of the controversy. Sharma also reminded the Bench that the DGP had earlier claimed — incorrectly — that a gangster’s interview had not taken place in Punjab, prompting the court to seek an affidavit in that matter as well.

He further submitted that the petitioner had approached the DGP, the CM’s office, the State Women’s Commission and the Police Complaints Authority, but no action had followed. “If the State believes the audio recordings are false or inaudible, the remedy lies in forensic analysis, not institutional denial,” he contended.

Disposing of the matter, the court observed that the appropriate course of action for the petitioner was to move the Magistrate concerned.