DMK moves Madras HC to make CM Vijay, ministers face POCSO probe SIT
Synopsis
The DMK has taken the political battle over the R. Veeramani POCSO case to the Madras High Court, demanding that the SIT summon Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and two ministers to back up their public claims that the previous DMK government shielded the accused — or hand over any evidence they hold. It is a rare legal manoeuvre that turns ministerial rhetoric into a potential courtroom obligation.
Key Takeaways
DMK filed a petition in the Madras High Court on 29 September through party treasurer T.R.
The petition seeks a court direction to the all-women SIT to summon CM C.
Joseph Vijay and ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R.
The three leaders had publicly alleged the previous DMK government shielded POCSO accused R.
Veeramani , founder of Gem Granites .
Baalu argued that withholding information in a POCSO case could amount to concealment of an offence .
The petition does not ask the court to rule on the truth of allegations against the former government — only that the SIT examine the evidentiary basis of the ministers' claims.
The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) has approached the Madras High Court, seeking a judicial direction compelling the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the R. Veeramani alleged child sexual abuse case to examine whether Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and two cabinet ministers possess evidence to back their public claims that the previous DMK government shielded the accused. The petition was filed on 29 September through party treasurer T.R. Baalu.
Background to the Case
R. Veeramani, founder of Gem Granites, is the prime accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. An all-women SIT was constituted specifically to investigate the allegations against him. The case has since drawn intense political scrutiny, with the ruling dispensation and the DMK trading accusations over the handling of the investigation.
What the DMK's Petition Argues
In an affidavit filed by Baalu, the DMK contended that Chief Minister Vijay and ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar had publicly alleged that the former DMK administration protected Veeramani. The party argued that anyone making such claims in connection with a POCSO case bears a corresponding duty to place any supporting material before the investigating agency.
Baalu further contended that withholding information relevant to a POCSO investigation could amount to concealment of an offence — a serious legal threshold. The DMK's representation, submitted to the SIT on 27 September, asked investigators to summon the three leaders and collect any material in their possession that could assist the enquiry.
Scope of the Petition
Notably, the petition does not ask the court to adjudicate on the truth of the allegations against the previous government. Its narrower ask is that the SIT be directed to consider the DMK's representation and determine whether the public statements made by the three leaders were grounded in actual evidence. The representation also questioned whether any of the three had obtained investigation-related material that should not legitimately have been available to them.
A copy of the representation was also sent to the Director General of Police and Head of Police Force, according to Baalu.
Political and Legal Significance
The move places the political rhetoric surrounding the Veeramani investigation squarely before the Madras High Court, effectively forcing a judicial assessment of whether ministerial claims were substantive or rhetorical. This comes amid an already charged atmosphere, with the POCSO case serving as a flashpoint between the current state government and the DMK. Critics argue that both sides risk politicising a sensitive child protection matter, potentially affecting the integrity of the SIT's independent probe.
The High Court is yet to list the petition for hearing; the SIT, meanwhile, continues its investigation into the allegations against Veeramani. How the court responds to the DMK's plea could set a significant precedent on the accountability of public officials who make evidentiary claims about ongoing criminal investigations.
Point of View
It shifts the burden of proof onto the ruling side without directly contesting the underlying allegations. What mainstream coverage underplays is the precedent at stake — if courts begin directing SITs to examine the evidentiary basis of politicians' public claims, it could meaningfully constrain the culture of making unverifiable allegations during criminal investigations. The risk, however, cuts both ways: the DMK itself must be careful that this litigation is not seen as an attempt to deflect scrutiny from the Veeramani case itself, which involves serious charges against a child. The child's interests must remain the court's primary lens, not the political fortunes of either party.
NationPress
29 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why has the DMK moved the Madras High Court in the Veeramani POCSO case?
The DMK filed a petition seeking a court direction to the SIT to summon Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar. The party argues that since the three leaders publicly claimed the previous DMK government shielded POCSO accused R. Veeramani, they are obligated to share any supporting evidence with investigators.
Who is R. Veeramani and what is the POCSO case against him?
R. Veeramani is the founder of Gem Granites and the prime accused in a case registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. An all-women SIT was specifically constituted to probe the alleged child sexual abuse charges against him.
What exactly does the DMK's petition ask the court to do?
The petition asks the Madras High Court to direct the SIT to act on the DMK's representation dated 27 September, which sought the summoning of the Chief Minister and two ministers for questioning. It does not ask the court to rule on whether the previous government actually shielded Veeramani.
Could the ministers face legal consequences for their public statements?
According to the DMK's affidavit, withholding information relevant to a POCSO investigation could amount to concealment of an offence. However, the court has not yet ruled on the petition, and no legal consequences have been determined at this stage.
What happens next in the case?
The Madras High Court is yet to list the DMK's petition for hearing. The SIT continues its independent investigation into the allegations against Veeramani. The court's response to the petition could set a precedent on whether public officials can be compelled to substantiate evidentiary claims made during ongoing criminal investigations.
