The Uttarakhand High Court on Tuesday directed the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Nainital to personally supervise the investigation into the alleged rape of a 12-year-old girl—a case that has sparked communal violence in the city.

A police complaint in the matter was lodged last week, though the incident is reported to have taken place a month ago. Media reports suggest that the case took a communal turn as the accused is a Muslim and the victim belongs to the Hindu community.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra asked the SSP to monitor the investigation weekly and file quarterly reports with the Court.

“A crime, more so against a minor, we are not going to condone… Justice has to be done, more so when it is a helpless child. There is no two opinions about it,” remarked Chief Justice Narendar during the hearing.

The case arose out of a petition filed by the wife of the accused, challenging a demolition notice issued by the local municipal body. The Court had earlier warned that such action would violate Supreme Court guidelines and criticized the authorities for failing to maintain law and order. Following the Court’s remarks, the municipal body withdrew its notice, prompting the petitioner to seek withdrawal of her plea.

Reiterating the need for adherence to judicial precedents, the Court said:
“There is an order of the Supreme Court. It can't be that every time the Court has to remind the administration that there is a judgment, that there are guidelines, that there is a law holding the field.”

During the proceedings, Advocate General (AG) SN Babulkar acknowledged the sensitivity of the rape case and confirmed that it had led to a breakdown of law and order. He claimed the demolition notice had been misrepresented in court.

Meanwhile, concerns were raised before the Bench about the police inaction against those involved in the violence and about targeted social media posts against lawyers and judges. Justice Narendar directed the counsel to bring these concerns to the AG’s attention. In response to the Court’s query on social media regulation, the AG replied, “Social media... nobody has control,” to which the Bench reminded him that the Central government has issued rules in this regard.

The Court also questioned the rationale behind the issuance of the demolition notice:
“The accused was in custody. The accused’s family was thrown out of the house... the house was locked... they abandoned the house. Who did you issue the notice to?”

An intervention application was also filed seeking to highlight alleged lapses in the police investigation. However, the Court declined to entertain it in the current proceedings, stating:
“You want to sensationalize the hearing? Does your submission have any bearing on the prayer here?” It advised the applicant to file a separate petition, assuring that any genuine concern regarding the investigation would be duly considered:
“If there is any lapse in investigation, come with a petition. We will see it is not derailed.”

The SSP informed the Court that the case is being personally monitored, and that the SC/ST Act has been invoked. The probe has been handed over to an officer of DSP rank.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the SSP to review the case weekly and submit a detailed report every quarter.

When the Advocate General sought a word of appreciation for the police, the Court clarified,
“We have expressed our sympathy with the police. We were upset with the administration. How many policemen are you going to appoint? That is why we said the administration should not aggravate the situation.”

Advocate Kartikeya Hari Gupta appeared for the petitioner.