SC sets aside Madras HC directive to arrest Tamil Nadu ADGP Jayaram, transfers probe to CB-CID
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside 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.
Given the 'controversial circumstances' and no objection offered by the Tamil Nadu government, a Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan directed that the matter be handed over to CB-CID (Crime Branch- Criminal Investigation Department) for further investigation.
The Justice Bhuyan-led Bench was dealing with a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the senior IPS official seeking a stay on the impugned Madras High Court directive.
During the course of the hearing on Wednesday, the apex court raised eyebrows over the suspension order issued by the Tamil Nadu Home Department and asked the state government's counsel to seek instructions on the withdrawal of the ADGP Jayaram's suspension.
'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,' the Justice Bhuyan-led bench had remarked.
After obtaining instructions from the Tamil Nadu government, senior advocate Siddharth Dave, on Thursday, submitted that ADGP Jayaram was suspended following his involvement in the alleged crime and not pursuant to the impugned order of the Madras High Court.
Dave stated that the All India Service Rules provided for the suspension of an official until the completion of the probe. In view of the state government's stand, the top court, in its order, recorded that the petitioner (ADGP Jayaram) would have the option to avail his remedies against the suspension order. Further, the Justice Bhuyan-led Bench asked the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to assign the alleged abduction case to a different Bench.
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.
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. His 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."
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.
Pertinently, the state's government on Wednesday submitted before the top court that ADGP Jayaram was not arrested since he joined the investigation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Maharashtra reconstitutes panel on Karnataka border row
BELAGAVI: In a fresh move to bolster its stance on the boundary dispute with Karnataka, the Maharashtra government has reconstituted its high power committee. The committee will be headed by Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis. Several top leaders from different political parties of Maharashtra are on this panel, which was earlier headed by former CM Eknath Shinde. The 18-member committee includes DyCMs Eknath Shinde and Ajit Pawar, former CMs Sharad Pawar, Prithviraj Chavan, and Narayan Rane, and border affairs expert Prof Avinash Kolhe. Ministers Chandrakant Dada Patil and Shambhuraje Desai are on the core coordination team attached to the panel and are tasked with handling matters related to the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti (MES), a pro-Marathi outfit based in Karnataka. According to informed sources, the committee will draw up strategies to not only strengthen the boundary case stronger in the Supreme Court but would also dwell upon various alternatives which could help Maharashtra in the ongoing tussle. Sources said that MES leaders may be asked to provide information about the dispute which could benefit Maharashtra. It may be noted that at the behest of MES, the Maharashtra government is involved in a legal and political battle with Karnataka, staking its claim on hundreds of villages and towns of Karnataka along the border, including Belagavi, Khanapur, Karwar, Bhalki, and Nippani.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Women don't need husband's consent or sign for passport: HC
Bengaluru : A woman does not need her husband's consent and signature to apply for a passport and insisting on the same is an instance of 'male supremacism', the Madras high court has said disposing of a petition filed by a woman who sought directions to authorities to issue her a fresh passport. Madras high court called the RPO's demand for an estranged husband's consent for passport issuance "shocking."(Madras High Court (File)) Saying the insistence by the Regional Passport Office (RPO) that the woman get her estranged husband's permission for issuance of a passport was 'shocking', the bench of justice N Anand Venkatesh said it shows the 'mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband'. The woman, Revathy, moved the court saying she applied for a passport in April, but her application was not processed and the petitioner was informed that she must obtain the signature of her husband in Form-J and only thereafter, the application will be processed by the Chennai RPO. The petitioner got married in 2023 and there was a matrimonial dispute between the two, which resulted in her husband filing a petition before a local court, seeking the dissolution of the marriage. This petition was pending. The RPO also took the pending dispute into consideration, following which she filed the present petition. What the Madras HC bench said In his order, the judge said that in the considered view of this court, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking a passport has to be processed independently. 'It is not necessary for a wife to get the permission of her husband and take his signature before applying for a passport before the authority,' the judge said in the June 18 order. 'This insistence made by the 2nd respondent (the RPO) shows the mindset of the society in treating woman who are married as if they are chattel belonging to the husband. It is quite shocking that the passport office is insisting for the permission of the husband and his signature in a particular form in order to process the application submitted by the petitioner for passport,' the court said. The judge said the petitioner after marriage does not lose her individuality and a wife can always apply for a passport without the permission or signature of the husband in any form. It noted that it was not possible for the petitioner woman to obtain her husband's signature on the application in view of the strained relationship between them, the judge said, the RPO was insisting the woman 'fulfil an impossibility'. 'The practice of insisting for permission from the husband to apply for passport, does not augur well for a society which is moving towards emancipation. This practice is nothing short of male supremacism,' the court said. The judge directed the RPO to process the application submitted by the petitioner and issue a passport in her name on her satisfying the other requirements. This process shall be completed within four weeks, the judge added.
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.
