Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Can’t ask girls to restrict movement; it’s akin to keep cars off the road to stop accidents

Can’t ask girls to restrict movement; it’s akin to keep cars off the road to stop accidents

In light of recent serious incidents in Tamil Nadu — including the reported abduction of a woman in Coimbatore, the gang-rape of a 20-year-old student near Coimbatore airport, and the installation of spy cameras in a women’s hostel in Krishnagiri — how effective are existing criminal laws and procedural safeguards (such as the Indian Penal Code, police rules, and protections for vulnerable victims)? Can they prevent such crimes, ensure a timely investigation and arrest, and deter organised networks involved?

Further, what specific legal reforms could strengthen policing, restore public confidence, and enhance the safety of women in Tamil Nadu?

— Selvamuthu, Peelamedu, Coimbatore

In practical terms, the police alone cannot eliminate sex-related crimes. At best, they can adopt preventive measures and maintain heightened vigilance.

During my tenure heading a one-person committee on caste-based violence in schools, I observed a disturbing rise in sexual offences on educational campuses — sometimes involving teachers themselves. In that report, I recommended sensitisation of students and the promotion of a healthy, respectful understanding between genders. Orientation programmes for both students and teachers at the start of every academic year were suggested as essential steps.

Sexual violence is not merely a law and order issue — it reflects deep-rooted social attitudes and a lack of gender understanding. Until societal change takes root, increasing public vigilance and community responsibility is crucial. Advising girls to restrict their movement is not a solution; it is akin to keeping cars off the road to prevent accidents. Sustainable safety will come only through awareness, education, and a shift in collective mindset.

Supreme Court stresses accountability as stray dog crisis demands local enforcement

As an ordinary citizen worried about frequent stray dog attacks near schools, hospitals, and public spaces, please clarify the Supreme Court’s recent order mandating the immediate relocation of such dogs to shelters after sterilisation and vaccination. How will this directive be practically enforced by local authorities, and what accountability mechanisms exist if they fail to comply? Additionally, can citizens demand action or approach courts if municipal bodies neglect these directions, given that the order aims to protect our fundamental right to life and safety under Article 21 of the Constitution?

— Sam Chelladurai, Guindy

The Supreme Court’s three separate orders in as many weeks on the stray dog issue reflect the judiciary’s recognition that India lacks a consistent, long-term solution.

For years, many local bodies have neglected their legal duty to manage stray animals effectively, while strong pressure from animal rights groups has further complicated enforcement. As a result, the unchecked proliferation of unmonitored and unsterilised dogs has escalated into a genuine public safety concern.

Under the Court’s latest directive, municipalities are required to identify, sterilise, vaccinate, and relocate aggressive or high-risk stray dogs to designated shelters. If local authorities fail to act, citizens may file representations with municipal commissioners or approach High Courts or the Supreme Court under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution, invoking their fundamental right to life and safety under Article 21.

Comparatively, even in the UK, tort law allows individuals to sue for negligence where authorities or pet owners fail to prevent foreseeable harm — a principle that could guide accountability here as well.