Cash-for-sex scandal: GOVT response to Pil wanted to analyze audio clips

The High Court here on Monday instructed the government of Punjab to make an affidavit in response to a legal dispute (public interest) in which two audio recordings in a “cash for-sex scandal” were requested by a high-ranking IPS official.

The Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeeet Goel department entered the direction, while she heard a petition submitted by lawyer Nikhil Saraf.

The lawyer Amit Sharma, who appeared for the petent, stated that the case reflected a serious collapse of the institutional accountability. “This is a matter in which institutional silence hits a blow in the core of our constitutional values,” he told the court.

Sharma claimed that in one of the records a male voice, similar to that of a publicly profiled IPS officer, can be heard in order to negotiate paid sex.

In the second, the same voice says a woman who says she changes from uniform to send explicit photos to a group chat.

Sharma also stipulated that the records with a persistent NDPS case overlap with a policeman who allegedly called the name of an IPS officer during her arrest and was found in the possession of heroin and not taken into account.

In response to questions from the bank as to whether appropriate legal remedies were pursued to the court before approaching, Sharma said that Nikhil Saraf had sent complaints to several statutory authorities.

He said that the prime minister's office forwarded the complaint to the home department, which is not acting.

He said the authority of the police complaint rejected the complaint on a close technical reason, while the Punjab State's Women's Commission did not react, although they had the powers to act SUO Motu in accordance with Section 10 of the Law on Women of the US state of Punjab.

Sharma emphasized that a judge had issued an ex -part gag arrangement that suppressed the records without notice, hearing or forensic review. This command, the state lawyer intervened, has remained the High Court since then.

When the government attorney raised and argued that the petent had to look at a magistrate to look for a FIR registration, Sharma replied that the new provisions in accordance with Section 175 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita would request that the application for office had raised a report.

According to the officials, this would protect the officials and make justice difficult.

After hearing the submissions, the Bank department instructed the government to submit an affidavit as an answer. The next hearing is planned for July 17th.