In Sex Assault Case Involving Granite Baron, Madras High Court's Key Ruling

The Madras High Court has refused to transfer the investigation into the alleged POCSO case involving granite baron and GEM Granites founder R Veeramani to the Central Bureau of Investigation, saying the recently formed Special Investigation Team should be given time to probe. Justice V Lakshminarayanan said the SIT had started its investigation only on September 25. 

Hearing a petition filed by journalist Varahi and the National People's Sakthi Party seeking a CBI probe, the court also said there should be no politicisation of a case involving children.

The petitioners have argued that the investigation had been delayed for months and referred to allegations of corruption and possible pay-offs to the police personnel in connection with an alleged attempt to suppress the case.

The petitioners argued that the role of police officers who handled the case earlier also needed to be examined, and that this was another reason for seeking a CBI investigation.

The court, however, said the SIT had been formed recently and it would be premature to conclude that there had been no progress. The judge observed that the investigators could not be expected to establish every aspect of a complex case within four days.

The court also noted that the SIT is due to submit its first report on October 1, in accordance with its earlier direction. The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 7.

The Case

The case came to wider public attention after a video purportedly showing the sexual assault of a minor surfaced in October 2025. A police case under the POCSO Act was registered on October 7, 2025.

The initial police investigation subsequently moved towards closure, with investigators citing difficulties in identifying the survivor and insufficient evidence. A special POCSO court rejected the closure report in August this year and ordered further investigation. The renewed probe eventually led to the identification of the survivor and further evidence.

Veeramani was arrested on August 29 with Shanthi and her husband Mahendra Simhan, who had allegedly facilitated the crime. The police later arrested Ganesan, a former employee of the GEM group, alleging that he possessed a video connected to the case and had failed to bring it to the authorities.

The investigation has since widened, with the police examining allegations involving other possible survivors, the handling of evidence and the role of people who may have had knowledge of the alleged offences. Police sources  also say they are investigating a case of an alleged suicide of a child victim.

Questions On 2024 Police Complaint

A key issue in the controversy has been a complaint allegedly made to the Chennai Police in November 2024, nearly a year before the FIR.

Congress functionary Ranjan Kumar told NDTV that he had submitted a written complaint against Veeramani on November 24, 2024, after meeting then Additional Commissioner of Police N Kannan. He has said he provided information and video-related material and sought action against Veeramani and Shanthi.

Police sources say Kannan has said he forwarded the complaint to then Chennai Police Commissioner A Arun because he believed the matter required specialised investigation. Both Arun and Kannan were subsequently placed on compulsory wait, while Assistant Commissioner MA Yasmin was moved to vacancy reserve amid scrutiny of the earlier handling of the case.

The role of the police officers who dealt with the earlier complaint is now among the issues being examined.

The four-member all-women SIT was constituted by DGP Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal on September 24. It is headed by Additional Commissioner of Police PC Thenmozhi and includes Joint Commissioner Disha Mittal, SP J Mutharasi and DCP VV Geethanjali. 

The team is functioning under the supervision of Chennai Police Commissioner A Amalraj.

Political Blame Game

The case has also become a major political flashpoint between the ruling TVK and the opposition DMK.

TVK leaders have questioned why the case, registered during the previous DMK government, did not result in action against Veeramani and why the investigation subsequently moved towards closure. Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar has alleged that the case was suppressed during the DMK regime and demanded answers from former Chief Minister MK Stalin.

The TVK has also demanded an explanation from Stalin over the handling of the case, while acknowledging that it had not produced evidence that Stalin personally intervened in the investigation.

Stalin, meanwhile, has rejected allegations that his government protected Veeramani, saying those responsible should face the maximum punishment irrespective of their position. The DMK has accused the TVK government of using the case for political purposes, particularly in the run-up to the Madurantakam and Dharapuram bypolls.

The DMK also alleged that the TVK government too had tried to close the case. 

The political dispute has now extended to the SIT itself. DMK leader TR Baalu has approached the High Court, seeking the SIT be directed to question Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay and TVK ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar over their allegations concerning the previous government.

In this backdrop, the High Court has now chosen to allow the SIT investigation to proceed rather than order a transfer to the CBI. The court's first major benchmark will be the SIT's report due tomorrow, October 1.