High Court directs Punjab to file affidavit in PIL on cash-for-sex scandal
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday directed Punjab to file an affidavit in response to a Public Interest Litigation seeking forensic verification of two audio recordings allegedly involving a senior IPS officer in a cash-for-sex scandal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel passed the direction while hearing a petition filed by Supreme Court advocate Nikhil Saraf.
The Bench clarified that the issue of locus standi raised by the state would be considered after the affidavit is submitted.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Amit Sharma submitted that the case reflected a serious collapse of institutional accountability. “This is a matter where institutional silence strikes a blow at the core of our constitutional values,” he told the court.
Sharma presented a three-pronged submission. First, he stated that the petition placed on record two audio recordings. In one, a male voice, similar to that of a publicly profiled IPS officer, is heard negotiating paid sex, requesting a threesome, and bargaining over the price with a woman arranging for another.
In the second, the same voice tells a woman, who says she is changing out of uniform, to send explicit photographs to a group chat.
Sharma also submitted that the recordings intersect with an ongoing NDPS case involving a woman constable who allegedly invoked the name of an IPS officer during her arrest and was found in possession of heroin and unaccounted luxury assets.
Further, he argued that the matter fits into a broader pattern of institutional failure. Citing past judicial pronouncements, Sharma referred to repeated delays in investigations, non-action against senior officers, and signs of collusion between law enforcement and criminal networks.
In response to questions from the Bench on whether appropriate remedies were pursued before approaching the court, Sharma informed that Nikhil Saraf, the petitioner, had sent complaints to multiple statutory authorities.
He said the Chief Minister’s Office had forwarded the complaint to the Home Department, which failed to act. The Police Complaints Authority rejected the complaint on a narrow technical ground. The Punjab State Women’s Commission did not respond, despite having powers under Section 10 of the Punjab State Women Commission Act to act suo motu.
Sharma also highlighted that a Judicial Magistrate had issued an ex parte gag order suppressing the recordings without notice, hearing, or forensic verification. That order, state counsel intervened, has since been stayed by the High Court.
When Punjab raised objections on grounds of locus and maintainability, arguing that the petitioner should have approached a Magistrate to seek FIR registration, Sharma responded that the new provisions under Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita would require the Magistrate to first seek a report from the accused officer’s employer and provide the officer an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance. This, he argued, would shield public officials and make getting justice difficult.
When asked about the basis of his utterance in the petition by the Bench, Sharma read from multiple High Court orders annexed with the petition. These included one where the same officer was fined one lakh rupees for delaying a criminal case for over two years, another where the court intervened 12 years later to secure FIR registration in a rape and murder case, and an order where the court issued statewide directions to curb prostitution and trafficking.
He also cited an order where the court directed action against senior officers who facilitated a jail interview for an accused, noting that no action had been taken and no affidavit filed despite specific instructions from the court.
After hearing submissions, the Division Bench directed Punjab to file an affidavit in response. The issue of locus will be addressed after the affidavit is received. The matter has been adjourned to July 17.
Punjab