The Madras High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to transfer the ongoing investigation into the high-profile Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case involving granite baron R. Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The division bench, led by Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, declined to entertain the petition, characterizing the legal action as a tactical attempt to impede the judicial process rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. The petitioner, identified as social activist and advocate clerk G Devarajan, requested to withdraw the plea after the bench signaled its firm disapproval of the motion.

The court’s decision follows a previous similar request made by investigative journalist Varaaki, which was also rejected by a single judge of the same High Court. In both instances, the judiciary emphasized that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) currently overseeing the case has demonstrated sufficient progress. The bench expressed significant concern that the petition served no purpose other than to create administrative delays, noting that the petitioner failed to provide any compelling, legally valid justification for why the transfer to a central agency was necessary at this stage of the investigation.

“We do not find any valid ground projected by the petitioner for seeking the reliefs. The present public interest litigation is filed only to stall the proceedings and not with any bona fide cause,” the court remarked during the hearing. By dismissing the plea as withdrawn, the court effectively maintained the status quo, allowing the SIT to continue its work without the disruption of an agency handover.

The Trajectory of the Criminal Investigation The criminal proceedings against R. Veeramani and his two associates, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, began on August 28 following their arrest by the Anti-Vice Squad. The initial evidence was brought to light through the Intelligence and Technology Police Unit (ITPU), which secured a USB drive containing disturbing video recordings that allegedly captured Veeramani sexually assaulting juvenile victims. Subsequent inquiries by law enforcement revealed that the accused had rented a private property in the Teynampet area of Chennai specifically to facilitate these crimes and lure vulnerable victims.

Following the registration of the case, the State authorities constituted a specialized SIT comprised of high-ranking female officers. This team was tasked with handling the sensitive nature of the POCSO investigation. The charges invoked in the case are extensive, spanning several sections of the POCSO Act, the Indian Penal Code, and the Information Technology Act. Specifically, the charges include those related to sexual assault, criminal conspiracy, destruction of evidence, and the illicit circulation of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM).

The circulation of the video clips online prompted rapid judicial intervention from the outset. The NGO Tulir moved the court to seek an interim injunction, which was successfully granted, barring media houses from broadcasting the sensitive footage or conducting investigative debates that could compromise the integrity of the ongoing police work or violate the privacy of the minor victims involved.

Challenging the Institutional Integrity of the SIT The core argument presented by the petitioner in the latest plea was rooted in skepticism regarding the independence of the current investigation. G Devarajan contended that the earlier team investigating the matter had allegedly attempted to drop charges against Veeramani, a move that was only halted when a Special Court directed a further, more thorough investigation.

The petitioner argued that even though the current SIT consists of different officers, they continue to operate under the same Commissioner of Police who oversaw the department when the initial attempt to drop the charges occurred. The petitioner asserted that there was a high risk that the current investigation could result in a "false report" intended to scapegoat lower-level officers while ensuring the primary accused avoided full legal accountability. Consequently, he argued that an investigation conducted by an entity entirely removed from State control was the only way to ensure fairness.

The court, however, remained unmoved by these allegations. The bench pointedly observed that the single judge who had heard the prior request for a CBI probe had already granted the SIT the necessary "breathing time" to gather evidence and complete their investigation. By refusing to intervene, the High Court signaled that judicial oversight, rather than wholesale transfer of jurisdiction, remains the preferred method for ensuring that investigators perform their duties effectively and impartially.

The decision serves as a significant reaffirmation of the court's trust in its established monitoring processes. By rejecting the petition, the bench underscored the principle that investigative agencies—particularly those established under court observation—should be allowed to conclude their work without external interference prompted by speculative apprehensions about police conduct. The case against R. Veeramani will continue to proceed under the current SIT, with the Special Court maintaining its role in overseeing the evidentiary standards and procedural compliance of the investigation. The withdrawal of the PIL marks the end of this specific effort to move the case to federal authorities, ensuring that the existing local framework continues to hold jurisdiction over the sensitive matter.