Back
Refuses Probe in Veeramani Case, Gives Time
The on Wednesday declined to transfer the investigation into the child sexual assault case against granite baron R. Veeramani to the ), holding that the ) constituted by the had only recently commenced its probe and must be given “.” Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, presiding over the matter, emphasised that the police do not possess a “” to gather all evidence instantaneously, and that transferring the case without allowing the adequate time would be improper. The court also warned against politicising the sensitive case, which involves minor victims, several of whom belong to Scheduled Caste communities.
Background: The Veeramani Case and Formation
The case arose from allegations that Veeramani, along with two aides—Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti—sexually assaulted minor girls at a rented house in Chennai’s Teynampet locality. The arrested the trio on , after the received a USB drive containing video clips allegedly depicting the assaults. The case was registered under multiple provisions: Sections 7, 8, 15(1), and 21(1) of the , Sections 354A, 354C, 201, and 120B of the , and Sections 66E and 67B of the .
On , the formed a five-member headed by a Deputy Commissioner of Police to investigate the matter. The had been operational for only four days when the petitions seeking a probe were taken up.
Petitioner’s Plea for Probe Rejected
Journalist Varaaki approached the High Court under , seeking transfer of the investigation to the on grounds that high-ranking officials might be involved and that the could not be trusted to conduct an independent and effective probe. He alleged that the investigating team was “keeping silent” regarding evidence against certain persons.
Justice Lakshminarayanan, however, expressed strong reservations about the petition. The court orally remarked that the petitioner might have “an axe to grind with the previous regime” and that the case was not a platform for publicity. “It's a sensitive matter. I'm more concerned about the children. You can't politicise it. You're not understanding the seriousness of it. There are other cases in which you can get publicity. Please don't use this,” the judge said.
The court further noted that the had just begun its work. “The itself had been formed hardly 4 days ago. I'm sure TN police does not have a to get all evidence at once. Investigation takes time, especially as in the present case… Be that as it may, as on today, an has been formed and it has commenced investigation. Even without giving them , asking to transfer probe to will not be proper,” the court observed.
The court also questioned the petitioner’s , suggesting that the plea might be a “” and even quipped, “We'll transfer it to the . Totally independent. Out of India.” The judge directed Varaaki to appear before the on and submit all materials in his possession, rather than seeking a change of the investigating agency.
DMK’s Intervention: Allegations of Cover-Up and Political Overtones
Separately, the party moved the court seeking directions to the to consider its representation regarding statements made by Chief Minister Joseph Vijay and Ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar. The DMK alleged that these leaders of the had publicly claimed to possess evidence of DMK’s involvement in the case but had not submitted it to the , which the party argued amounted to concealment of material evidence.
, appearing for the DMK, submitted, “Let us not make it a political issue. This issue relates to numerous child victims. We feel for them. Whoever is responsible, however high they might be, should be put to task.” He urged the court to direct the TVK leaders to produce any evidence they had. The court, however, noted that anyone could approach the voluntarily and that the should be allowed to work in peace. The hearing on the DMK’s plea was adjourned for four weeks.
Court’s Emphasis on
The ’s refusal to transfer the probe to the CIB reflects a broader judicial principle: courts are generally reluctant to interfere with ongoing investigations unless there is a clear demonstration of bias, , or a failure to act. Here, the court found no such grounds, especially since the had only just begun its work. The judge’s remarks underscore that investigating agencies must be given reasonable time and autonomy to collect evidence before their impartiality is questioned.
The court also highlighted the need to protect the identities and dignity of child victims, particularly those from marginalized communities. By admonishing the petitioner for attempting to politicise the matter, the court reinforced that child sexual abuse cases demand a focused, rather than public spectacle.
Implications for Legal Practice and Future Petitions
This ruling serves as a cautionary precedent for litigants seeking transfer of investigations to the or other external agencies. The court made clear that a mere apprehension of bias, unsupported by concrete evidence of investigative failure, will not suffice, especially when a specialized has been constituted and is actively pursuing the case. Legal practitioners advising clients on such petitions must be prepared to demonstrate that the existing investigating body has been given a reasonable opportunity but has either failed or is compromised.
Additionally, the court’s direction to the petitioner to submit evidence directly to the rather than seeking a change of agency reinforces the principle that the proper forum for presenting materials is the investigating officer, not the court through PILs. This approach streamlines the process and avoids unnecessary judicial interference.
Conclusion
The has allowed the to continue its investigation into the Veeramani POCSO case without interference, while also cautioning against political grandstanding at the expense of child victims. The court’s observations on the need for investigative and its rejection of the transfer petition send a clear message: courts will not rush to displace state investigative agencies without compelling reasons. The matter will be heard again after the submits its progress report, and the petitioner has been directed to cooperate with the investigating team. For now, the has been given the time and space it requested to build a comprehensive case.
