The Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the Tamil Nadu government has informed the Madras High Court that the first chargesheet has been filed in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case involving granite baron Veeramani. Making submissions before Justice V Lakshminarayanan, State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan, assisted by Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani, stated that a chargesheet had been filed in one of the registered cases. The prosecution further submitted that in connection with another case involving multiple victims, the SIT intends to file multiple chargesheets within the next few days.
What was the court's observation on the progress of the SIT investigation?
The court observed that substantial progress was being made in the investigation. Justice V Lakshminarayanan directed the High Court registry to keep the status report submitted by the SIT in a sealed cover.
The matter originated from a petition filed by investigative journalist Varaaki, who initially sought a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The petitioner argued that high-ranking officials were allegedly involved in the case and raised apprehensions that the SIT would not conduct an independent and effective investigation, necessitating intervention by an independent agency. However, the court had previously refused to order a CBI probe, remarking that the SIT formed by the state government should be given adequate time to collect all evidence connected to the case.
During the hearing, the public prosecutor informed the bench that the SIT had been issuing press releases regarding the investigation. When the court questioned why the SIT was not holding a formal media briefing, the prosecutor submitted that during such briefings, the press might seek additional information which could ultimately lead to the publicising of sensitive details related to the case. The SIT, however, assured the court that it would brief the media after filing the remaining chargesheets.
Earlier, when the matter was taken up, the SIT had indicated that it would be filing a chargesheet soon. The latest hearing confirmed the filing of the first chargesheet, with the assurance of further filings imminently. The petitioner, Varaaki, also submitted additional information pertaining to the case during the proceedings. The court directed the petitioner to submit any material he comes across in connection with the case directly to the SIT, rather than waiting for court hearings to bring such material on record.
Stage | Petitioner's Plea | Court's Disposition |
|---|---|---|
Initial Hearing | Sought CBI probe alleging high-ranking official involvement and lack of SIT independence | Refused CBI probe; granted SIT breathing time to collect evidence |
Previous Hearing | Monitored investigation progress | SIT assured imminent filing of chargesheet |
Current Hearing | Submitted additional information; monitored status report | Noted substantial progress; first chargesheet filed; multiple chargesheets to follow; status report sealed; directed petitioner to share material directly with SIT |
The bench continues to monitor the investigation, balancing the need for an independent probe with the operational autonomy granted to the state-constituted SIT. The sealing of the status report underscores the sensitivity of the material involving minor victims under the POCSO Act. The court's direction to the petitioner to route information through the investigating agency aims to streamline the flow of evidence and preserve the integrity of the ongoing inquiry.