Cash-for-sex scandal: Govt reply sought on PIL for analysis of audio clips

The High Court here on Monday directed the Punjab Government to file an affidavit in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking forensic verification of two audio recordings in a “cash-for-sex scandal” allegedly involving a senior IPS officer.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel passed the direction while hearing a petition filed by advocate Nikhil Saraf.

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 submitted that in one of the recordings, a male voice, similar to that of a publicly profiled IPS officer, is heard negotiating paid sex.

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.

In response to questions from the Bench on whether appropriate remedies were pursued before approaching the court, Sharma said Nikhil Saraf 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.

He said the Police Complaints Authority rejected the complaint on a narrow technical ground while the Punjab State Women’s Commission did not respond despite having powers to act suo motu under Section 10 of the Punjab State Women Commission Act.

Sharma highlighted that a Judicial Magistrate had issued an ex parte gag order suppressing the recordings without notice, hearing or forensic verification. That order, the state counsel intervened, has since been stayed by the High Court.

When the government counsel raised objections on grounds of 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.

After hearing submissions, the Division Bench directed the government to file an affidavit in response. The next hearing has been scheduled for July 17.

Punjab