The court ruled that multiple pending cases against the petitioner indicate no unlawful interference by police, affirming the importance of statutory responses to complaints filed under the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act.

ORDER

This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed by the petitioner to direct the first and second respondents to take appropriate action on the petitioner's complaints dated 08.02.2025, 23.05.2025 and 21.06.2025 in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Police (Reforms) Act , 2013 and further forbearing the third respondent from interfering with the functioning of the petitioner's organization, namely Savuku Media, situated at No.1, Parthasarathy Nagar 3rd street, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088 in any manner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Video Journalist and whistle blower, committed to expose illegality, corruption, abuse of authority and misconduct perpetrated by public servants, political figures and others wielding public power. Since the petitioner has been exposing police atrocities, misconduct and inaction, he has been subjected to various unlawful actions by the Commissioner of Chennai City Police/third respondent. The petitioner and his staffs are under constant unlawful surveillance and harassment by the third respondent, amounting to misuse of state machinery, infringing their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of Constitution of India. Hence, the petitioner filed complaints on 08.02.2025, 23.05.2025 and 21.06.2025 to the respondents 1 and 2. However, they have not taken any action amounting to statutory dereliction. Therefore, the present petition is filed.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that based on the petitioner's representations/complaints dated 08.02.2025, 23.05.2025 and 21.06.2025, enquiry was conduct and disposed of vide proceedings of the Additional Chief Secretary to Government dated 28.07.2025 and he also produced the copies of the said proceedings.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the copies of the said proceedings were not served to him. Hence, the learned Additional Advocate General handed over the copies of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. Further, when the matter came up before this Court on 14.07.2025, this Court had directed the Additional Advocate General to file counter affidavit and also a report as to how many complaints filed against the petitioner are pending at the enquiry stage, how many of them registered in FIR, how many of them culminated in charge sheet and how many case are pending for trial.

6. Accordingly, the second respondent has filed a report stating that there are totally 38 cases pending against the petitioner out of which, 13 cases are under investigation, 24 cases charge sheets have been filed and the same have also been taken on file by various Courst and one case in Crime No.173 of 2024 has been closed as "Mistake of Fact". The details of which are as follows:

Under Investigation-13