SC advocate questions govt’s delay in taking action against Reny Wilfred

Supreme Court advocate Vrinda Grover, representing the Nagaland State Commission for Women (NSCW), Saturday raised serious concerns over the state government’s delayed handling of the alleged sexual harassment case involving senior IAS officer Reny Wilfred and also called for greater transparency and accountability in the pursuit of justice.
Addressing media at Hotel Saramati here in the presence of NSCW chairperson W. Nginyeih Konyak, Supreme Court lawyer Grover said that Wilfred’s recent suspension was not an exceptional act but a legally mandated step under service rules.
It may be mentioned that Wilfred was recently placed under suspension after months of delay, despite being accused of multiple sexual harassment by female employees of the Investment and Development Authority of Nagaland (IDAN), where he held the post of joint secretary IDAN.
After the allegations came to light and which was also reported in this newspaper, Wilfred was instead shifted to the finance department as joint secretary. He then convened a press conference in his office chamber even after police took cognizance of complaint from NSWC.
Grover said that following the complaints by several women employees of IDAN submitted to the NSCW regarding Wilfred, the government finally acted in accordance with the law by suspending him.
“If such steps were taken earlier, would this impunity have been checked? Would this kind of crime not have been repeated? One wonders whether, if at that moment, the government had acted in line with the law and policy, could the dignity of other women have been safeguarded,” she remarked.
She also highlighted his previous involvement in the Noklak POCSO case, where two minor girls had alleged they were sexually abused by him. However even then, the state government did not suspend Wilfred but only transferred him to Kohima where he was appointed as joint secretary IDAN, a new department.
Grover said while the government’s suspension order acknowledged an ongoing criminal investigation, yet it failed to mention the specific charges filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). She said that the suspension order was “completely silent”.
Grover expressed deep concern over this omission, calling it “unusual and troubling.” She pointed out that the FIR against Wilfred named him under Section 74 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), Section 75 (sexual harassment), and Section 79 (word, gesture or act intended to insult a woman’s modesty) of the BNS.
“These are serious charges,” Grover stressed, adding that a suspension order must clearly reflect them so the public and, more importantly, the survivors can be assured that justice is being pursued earnestly.
She also said that FIRs are not put up on the website to protect the identity of the women and not the identity of the accused.
Grover remarked, “This is very, very extraordinary. It never happens. A civil servant facing criminal prosecution involving sexual abuse of minors is not suspended by the government.” She reminded that under the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, suspension in cases involving moral turpitude is not discretionary but a legal requirement.
Reny Wilfred has filed a Writ Petition in the Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court seeking to quash the FIR dated April 2, 2025. The matter was listed for hearing on May 23 but was adjourned to July 22 due to a reported personal bereavement involving Wilfred’s senior counsel.
Reacting to it, Grover said the reply submitted to the High Court on behalf of NSCW, clearly asserted that the case involving Reny Wilfred did not qualify for quashing of the FIR. She pointed out that the legal principles governing quashing of FIRs have been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court, and the present case does not meet the criteria for such relief.
Grover informed that the Nagaland State Commission for Women (NSCW) has been formally impleaded as a party in the case. She revealed that prior to this, the petitioner had named three individual members of the Commission as respondents, which she termed as “unwarranted” and “legally improper.” Grover strongly criticized the petition, stating that targeting individual members of a statutory body was a desperate attempt by Wilfred to intimidate and undermine the Commission’s institutional role. “These kinds of tactics, I don’t think will work well in the court room,” she stated.
Noklak sex case: While Wilfred is currently under investigation, Grover said the state government must reflect and offer an apology, particularly in reference to the Noklak minors’ case. She pointed out that the two young girls had to suffer due to serious lapse on the part of the authorities.
“The rules were broken — and for what reason?– Because those two girls were poor?. Are we now going to deliver justice based on is powerful and rich?” she asked.
NSCW chairperson W. Nginyeih appealed to all the civil societies to come out in support the victims of sexual harassment cases.
Grover admitted that in over 30 years of legal practice representing women and marginalized groups for justice, the Wilfred case was “not just a case of workplace misconduct– (but) a criminal conduct.” She reminded that when a senior public servant faces such serious allegations, the state’s response must be immediate, transparent, and in strict compliance with the law.
Grover asserted that sexual harassment was not a trivial issue and rejected the outdated terminology of merely referring it as “eve-teasing”. She added it was a terrible vocabulary, that ought to be discarded. She pointed out that sexual harassment constitutes serious civil misconduct which come under Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act. She said this Act was “both a statutory and constitutional obligation of the employer to ensure a safe and harassment-free workplace.”
The case also reignited debates over systemic shortcomings in enforcing workplace sexual harassment safeguards. Grover highlighted that despite the legal mandates under the Vishakha Guidelines (1997) and the POSH Act (2013), many institutions failed to constitute Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). “Even two decades after Vishakha, compliance remains erratic, exposing countless women to risk,” she said.
She also highlighted the Supreme Court directive to setup ‘vulnerable witness deposition centers’ in every district. Such centers are essential for protecting survivors from direct confrontation with the accused during legal proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court’s directive in Smruti Tukaram Badade vs. State of Maharashtra (2022), Grover criticized the state’s failure to set up these facilities in every district, calling it a direct infringement on victims’ rights and justice delivery.