Nagaland State Commission for Women lawyer slams delay in IAS officer's suspension, flags systemic lapses

Supreme Court Advocate Vrinda Grover (left) and NSCW Chairperson W Nginyeih Konyak addressing a press conference at Hotel Saramati, Dimapur, on Saturday. (EM Images)

• DIMAPUR — The lawyer representing Nagaland State Commission for Women (NSCW) in the case against IAS officer Reny Wilfred has criticised the delayed suspension of the officer by Nagaland government.
• 
  
• Vrinda Grover, an advocate in the Supreme Court, also highlighted systemic failures in addressing sexual harassment cases during a press conference held in Dimapur on Saturday. The press briefing was delivered following a hearing at the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court on May 23.

Also read: Nagaland: IAS officer Reny Wilfred suspended over sexual harassment allegations

• 
  
• Wilfred was suspended on May 21 by the state government, nearly two months after an FIR was filed against him for alleged sexual harassment of female employees during his tenure as Joint Secretary of the Investment and Development Authority of Nagaland (IDAN).
• 
  
• Grover, sat alongside NSCW Chairperson W Nginyeih Konyak, questioned the timing and transparency of the suspension order.
• 
  
• She described the suspension order as a legal obligation rather than a proactive step, stating, "There is nothing exceptional about this suspension. This is what the law mandates."
• 
  
• She expressed alarm that no similar action had been taken earlier during Wilfred’s involvement in the Noklak case, where he was reportedly facing prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly sexually abusing two minor girls.
• 
  
• “This is extraordinary. A civil servant facing criminal prosecution under POCSO was not suspended. This has never happened,” Grover said.
• 
  
• The advocate pointed out that the Conduct of Service Rules—applicable to all civil servants nationwide—mandate suspension in cases involving serious misconduct or criminal allegations. She argued that Wilfred’s actions were not just administrative violations but criminal offences.
• 
  
• “If the government had acted earlier in accordance with the law and policy, could other women’s dignity have been protected?” she questioned.
• 
  
• The NSCW lawyer further criticised the vagueness of the May 21 suspension order, noting that it had failed to specify the charges against Wilfred. “A civil servant facing allegations involving moral turpitude must be suspended during the investigation. This is not discretionary—it is mandatory,” she asserted.
• 
  
• The order, issued by the Under Secretary to the government of Nagaland, cited charges under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including Section 74 (assault or criminal force to a woman), Section 75(2) (penalty for sexual harassment), and Section 79 (offences related to insulting the modesty of a woman).
• 
  
• According to Grover, the case highlights broader structural issues in handling sexual harassment within public institutions. Despite landmark legal frameworks such as the Vishakha Guidelines (1997) and the POSH Act (2013), she noted that compliance remains inconsistent, even more so in the formation and functioning of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs).
• 
  
• She also flagged the absence of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs) in Nagaland, describing it as a serious infrastructural gap that compromises survivor protection.
• 
  
• “These centres are essential to prevent victims from facing direct confrontation with the accused during court proceedings,” she stated, referencing the 2022 Supreme Court judgement in Smruti Tukaram Badade vs State of Maharashtra, which reinforced the right to safe and dignified testimony for vulnerable witnesses.
• 
  
• Providing details of the May 23 hearing, Grover said that it involved a writ petition filed by Wilfred seeking to quash the FIR dated April 2 as well as to obtain an interim stay on its proceedings.
• 
  
• However, the matter was adjourned after Wilfred’s senior counsel was reportedly unavailable due to bereavement.
• 
  
• Grover clarified that their reply filed before the court clearly stated that this was not a case where FIR quashing is warranted, citing well-established legal precedents from the Supreme Court.
• 
  
• She also expressed concern over Wilfred naming three NSCW members as individual respondents in his petition. “This is not just improper—it’s a deliberate attempt to intimidate and derail the Commission’s efforts. But let me make it clear: the Commission is not intimidated. It is fulfilling its constitutional duties,” she asserted.
• 
  
• Grover called for robust institutional reforms, including the establishment of juvenile police units at every police station, as mandated under the POCSO Act. “These units are essential to ensure that police officers handling such cases are trained in child protection laws,” she said.
• 
  
• The next hearing is scheduled for July 22.