Supreme Court Slams Madras HCs Arrest Order Of Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram In Abduction Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed shock over an order of the Madras High Court that had directed Tamil Nadu Police to 'secure and take action' against now-suspended Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) H.M. Jayaram in connection with the abduction of an 18-year-old teenager.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the senior IPS official seeking a stay on the impugned Madras High Court directive.
As per the SLP filed before the apex court, there was absolutely no material on record warranting his custodial interrogation, and the 'arbitrary and prejudicial directions' were issued without due process, infringing his fundamental right to equality before the law and protection of life and personal liberty.
During the course of the hearing, the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench also raised eyebrows over the order issued by the Tamil Nadu Home Department on Tuesday, suspending ADGP Jayaram.
'He is a senior police official. Where is the question of suspending him when he has joined the investigation? You cannot do this. This is very demoralising,' it remarked.
Posting the matter for hearing on Thursday, the apex court asked Tamil Nadu's counsel to seek instructions on the withdrawal of the petitioner's suspension.
Pertinently, the state's government submitted before the top court that the petitioner was not arrested since he joined the investigation.
On Monday, Tamil Nadu Police took ADGP Jayaram into custody as he exited the Madras High Court premises, and was immediately taken to Thiruvalangadu police station for interrogation.
He was questioned for nearly six hours by the investigating officer, during which his formal statement was recorded as well.
The senior IPS official is accused of facilitating the abduction of a minor boy by allegedly providing his official vehicle to a gang involved in forcibly separating a couple.
The abduction case centres around a complaint lodged by a woman named Lakshmi, whose elder son had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes. The couple reportedly went into hiding, fearing retaliation.
In an attempt to locate the couple, members of the woman's family, allegedly aided by hired men, barged into Lakshmi's home and abducted her younger son in their absence. The boy was later found abandoned near a hotel, injured and traumatised.
Subsequent investigation revealed that an official car linked to ADGP Jayaram was allegedly used in the abduction, prompting the Madras High Court to take direct, immediate action against the senior IPS official.
On Tuesday, the matter reached the Supreme Court, and a bench of Justices Bhuyan and Manmohan agreed to hear the SLP on June 18.
Jayaram's lawyer said: "Yesterday, an ADGP rank officer was arrested on the direction of the Madras High Court. The SLP has been filed today at 10 a.m. Kindly list the matter for urgent hearing."
Advocates Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Sandeep Pandey, Vel Murugan, Venkatesh Mohanraj and Rajesh Singh Chauhan are representing the petitioner before the apex court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said
In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
Allegations, suspensions and a govt under fire
The stampede outside M Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4 during RCB's first IPL victory parade has spiralled into a political and administrative quagmire. Claiming 11 lives and injuring over 50, the incident has exposed glaring failures in crowd management and safety protocols. Activist T J Abraham has levelled serious allegations against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, and the Karnataka government's response, marked by hasty suspensions of IPS officers and a delayed report to the Centre, raises questions about accountability and competence. Documents reveal that Bengaluru police had flagged concerns about insufficient preparation time, yet the event proceeded with gates allegedly kept closed on DyCM Shivakumar's orders to create a spectacle. This decision, coupled with last-minute event scheduling, set the stage for a deadly crush. Activist T J Abraham's complaint, filed at Cubbon Park Police Station, names 14 individuals, including Siddaramaiah, Shivakumar, and Chief Secretary Shalini Rajneesh. Abraham accuses Shivakumar of leveraging the event for personal gain, alleging negotiations to acquire an RCB stake and planning unsafe festivities. The closed gates, he claims, were a deliberate move to amplify the crowd's fervour, directly contributing to the stampede. Rajneesh faces charges of misusing public funds for publicity, while Siddaramaiah's oversight as CM is questioned. A second complaint by activist Snehamayi Krishna echoes these sentiments, intensifying pressure on the Congress-led government. The Opposition BJP has demanded resignations and labelled the incident a result of 'utter mismanagement.' On June 5, the Karnataka government hastily suspended five top police officials, including Bengaluru Police Commissioner B Dayanand, ACP (West) Vikas Kumar, and DCP (Central Division) Shekhar. The stated reason was 'dereliction of duty'. However, this move smacks of scapegoating according to netizens. Police had warned of logistical challenges, yet the suspensions target lower-tier officials while sparing political leaders implicated in decision-making. Vikas Kumar has challenged his suspension at the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), arguing it overlooks systemic issues. In a bid to restore public trust, the Karnataka government has drafted the Karnataka Crowd Control (Managing Crowd at Events and Venues of Mass Gathering) Bill, 2025. The proposed legislation imposes up to three years in jail and Rs 5 lakh fines on commercial organisers, with lighter penalties for non-commercial ones, for safety violations. Compensation provisions, recoverable as land revenue if unpaid, aim to hold organisers accountable.
New Indian Express
3 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Madras High Court asks DVAC to file cases against two IAS officers
MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a criminal case against two IAS officers – C Kamaraj and M Vallalar – and suspended additional milk commissioner G Christhudhas, over an alleged scam in the procurement of registers for over 8,000 primary milk co-operative societies in 2019-20. Justice B Pugalendhi issued the order while dismissing a petition filed by Christhudhas challenging the orders through which he was suspended and prevented from retiring from service, a day before his superannuation in 2022. As per the court order, Kamaraj, the then dairy development director and Aavin MD, decided in 2019 that all primary milk co-operative societies should maintain uniformity in accounts using five specific registers. Quotations were obtained from six co-operative stores, and the Thoothukudi co-operative store, which quoted the lowest price of Rs 2,282.10, was approved. After Kamaraj's transfer, Vallalar reapproved the decision in February 2020.
