Arrest of Nakkeeran Gopal opens a can of worms in varsity sex scandal

When the opposition DMK took to the streets in protest against Governor Banwarilal Purohit for interfering in the state administration, he stated that Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code will be invoked against people who were trying to make it difficult for him to have meetings with officials across the state. Now, months after his stern warning, the governor’s office and the state police were left embarrassed when a court in Chennai refused to grant the police custody of R.R. Gopal, editor of Tamil bi-weekly Nakeeran.

Gopal was arrested by the Chennai city police under Section 124 of the IPC, after a complaint from the governor’s office.

On Tuesday, when Gopal reached the airport to board a flight to Pune at 8.45 am, the cops were at the airport to detain him. He had no idea why he was being detained or who the complainant was. He was taken to Chindathripet police station for questioning. The entire Tamil Nadu media flocked into the station within minutes. Politicians, including MDMK’s Vaiko and opposition leader M.K. Stalin, rushed to the spot. Vaiko was detained by the police for protesting against the arrest.

Gopal was arrested for publishing a cover story that the magazine carried in its April issue and yet another article in September which had allegations linking the governor’s office to an investigation into the 'sex-for-marks' scam in Madurai Kamaraj University. The case pertains to an assistant professor, Nirmala Devi, who was arrested for allegedly luring students into sex work.

As per the initial reports, Gopal was arrested under Section 124 of IPC, a law seldom used anywhere in the country. The section deals with assault on the president of India or the governor any state with an intent to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful powers invested in them. While Tamil Nadu has seen the government filing criminal defamation cases against journalists, publishers and even politicians for their writings and public speeches during the Jayalalithaa regime, invoking of Section 124 was something new.

Later in the day, Magistrate Gopinath, who heard the counsels of Nakeeran and the prosecution, refused to remand Gopal in custody. However, the arrest brought the entire media fraternity in the state together. In the evening, when Gopal was taken to the Egmore Metropolitan Court, former editor of The Hindu, N. Ram, walked into the court to explain to the magistrate why Section 124 was totally unwanted. “I came here not as an advocate, but as a fellow journalist to say why it is against the law. The magistrate was polite that he heard me,” said Ram.

Meanwhile, the Gopal's arrest and the court refusing to remand him has opened a can of worms in the Nirmala Devi case. While the one-man commission, headed by retired IAS officer R. Santhanam, has submitted its report, and the CBCID enquiry in the case has come to a close, it has not yet been known who the “VVIP” Nirmala Devi was referring to in an audio conversation with the girls she was trying to lure.

At a time when the CBCID has completed its probe and a few arrests have been made in connection with the case, the police detaining Gopal and Raj Bhavan demanding action against the weekly have sparked doubts in the minds of people.

The Nirmala Devi case has been murky and mysterious from day one. The case was registered on April 17 by Virdhungar police. The professor was arrested after the audio clip went viral. On April 18, the case was transferred to the CBCID, the state’s most powerful investigating agency. Madurai Kamaraj University Vice Chancellor Chelladurai went to the extent of setting up a five-memebr committee to probe the issue. Later, the committee was dispersed and Governor Purohit, who is the chancellor of the varsity, set up a one-man commission. Governor Purohit said the commission would submit the report to him and the same would be made public through a press conference. It may be recalled that the allegations were linked to Raj Bhavan.

A day after the CBCID began the probe, its chief Jayant Murali was shunted out and another officer, Amresh Pujari, took charge. On July 14, as Nirmala Devi was about to complete 90 days in prison, the CBCID filed its first charge-sheet under Section 167(2). On September 7, the CBCID filed a supplementary charge-sheet. Other professors arrested in the case—Murugan and Karuppasamy—too, were named in the chargesheet. However, the Santhanam commission report, which was submitted to the governor on May 15, is gathering dust, leaving many questions surrounding the sex scandal unanswered.

Sources close to the office of the chief minister say that the Nirmala Devi issue and the articles published in the media were some of the major issues discussed by Governor Purohit with Edappadi K. Palaniswami, when the latter called on the governor on Friday. Sources said these articles caused much embarrassment to the office of the governor, which led to the arrest of Gopal.

Arrest condemned

Meanwhile, the editors, publishers, and senior representatives of print, broadcast, and digital media in Tamil Nadu strongly condemned the arrest and “the draconian use of Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code against the editor and publisher of Nakkheeran magazine, Mr Nakkeeran Gopal.”

In a statement, they said, “The invocation of Section 124 IPC to attempt to prosecute an editor for publishing an allegedly objectionable article is unprecedented and unheard of. This section deals with assaulting the President, Governors, etc. with an intent to compel or restrain by criminal force the exercise of any lawful power by them. It is most unfortunate that the office of the Governor sought that a case be registered under Section 124 IPC against Mr Gopal and several others.”

Dubbing the move to invoke the section “disturbing”, they said, “It is a clear attempt to intimidate and gag the media. If allowed, it will be a deadly blow to the freedom of speech and expression, of which the freedom of the news media is an integral part. The manner in which the arrest of Mr Gopal was executed was in flagrant violation of the guidelines stipulated by the Supreme Court of India.”