Even as Vijaya Rahatkar, the chief of Maharashtra State Women’s Commission (SWC) is making persistent efforts to bring Salman Khan to book for his ‘rape’ remark, she has no time to deal with another actor who has long been harassing women with derogatory comments — Kamaal R Khan, also known as KRK.

Lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee, Kamaal R Khan aka KRK and SWC chief Vijaya Rahatkar
Lawyer Rizwan Siddiquee, Kamaal R Khan aka KRK and SWC chief Vijaya Rahatkar

Advocate Rizwan Siddiquee has now sent her a notice for failing to do her duty even after he complained to the SWC about KRK using Twitter to indulge in acts of sexual harassment, voyeurism, stalking and outraging the modesty of various women belonging to the film industry.

An example of the kind of derogatory tweets posted by KRK
An example of the kind of derogatory tweets posted by KRK

The complaint states that KRK has outraged the modesty of Sunny Leone, Bipasha Basu, Parineeti Chopra, Lisa Hayden, Alia Bhatt, Priyanka Chopra, Nargis Fakhri, Huma Qureshi, Anushka Sharma, Malaika Arora Khan, Jacqueline Fernandez, Mallika Sherawat, Amisha Patel, Katrina Kaif, Deepika Padukone, Kim Kardashian and many more on the social networking site with vulgar and derogatory comments and pictures.

The complaint further reads, that by doing this, Khan has rendered himself criminally liable to be tried under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code. With no response from the commission, Siddiquee then slapped a notice on the chief, Rahatkar, citing a rule that requires her to register a case within 24 hours of receiving a complaint.

The first complaint was made on June 29 and a reminder was sent six days later, on Tuesday (delivered by hand). “As per Section 3 of the National Commission for Women (procedure) Regulations 2005, she is duty bound to ensure that a complaint is registered within 24 hours and an acknowledgement is sent to the complainant, within three days of receipt of complaint. However, in spite of a written complaint against a serial offender and repeated phone calls, she has neither bothered to take cognizance of the issue nor even bothered to revert in the said matter. Neither she nor her office have even returned my calls,” said Siddiquee.

He further added, “Now, as she has failed in performing her duties, I have accordingly served her a notice under Section 166A of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013, for knowingly disobeying the direction of law as a public servant.”