Latest news with #Jayaram
Hindustan Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
SC refrains from interfering with ADGP's suspension
The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from interfering with the suspension of senior IPS officer and additional director general of police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in a kidnapping case involving a minor, even as it set aside the Madras High Court's order that directed his arrest and requested the high court chief justice to transfer the matter to another bench. The top court said the matter now warranted a 'dispassionate' investigation by a specialised agency, prompting the Tamil Nadu government to agree to hand over the probe to the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CBCID), which it described as the 'highest investigating body in the state.' A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan passed the directions after senior counsel Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, informed the court that Jayaram's suspension was not based on any judicial order but on provisions of the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, which allow suspension of an officer against whom a criminal investigation is pending. Jayaram, a senior officer of the 1995 batch, was suspended by the state government earlier this week after he was alleged to have played a part in the kidnapping of a 16-year-old boy in May, reportedly linked to an inter-caste marriage. The Madras High Court directed the state to arrest Jayaram, stating that 'no one is above the law,' triggering the suspension order shortly after his detention by the Tiruvallur district police. However, the Supreme Court, which questioned the suspension order on Wednesday, took note of the state's latest submission on Thursday and clarified that it would not intervene in the suspension, while allowing Jayaram the liberty to challenge it before the appropriate forum. 'Looking into the controversial circumstances under which the impugned order was passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case may be handed over to CBCID,' the bench recorded in its order, while also directing that 'the direction of the high court to secure arrest and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside.' During the hearing, the bench engaged in a pointed exchange with the Tamil Nadu government's counsel, expressing concern over the suspension in the absence of any arrest. 'If he has not been arrested, on what basis has he been suspended?' the bench asked Dave. Dave responded: 'Rules provide that an officer can be placed under suspension if there is a criminal investigation pending against him. It was not based on the order of the high court. It is totally under the rules.' To this, the bench suggested the state consider transferring the probe to an independent agency. 'You might consider transferring this investigation to a CID or some other independent agency for a dispassionate probe. You may even seek a transfer of this matter to a different judge,' the court observed. Jayaram's counsel interjected to argue that the high court overstepped its authority. 'The court acted like police and ordered for his arrest. I was not even named in the FIR,' he submitted. The bench, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations but reiterated that the state was well within its power to suspend the officer, while noting that Jayaram could always challenge the order. 'If the state wants to suspend you in exercise of its power, we cannot come in the way at this stage. You challenge the suspension order under the rules,' the bench said. Dave, upon taking instructions, returned to the bench later and submitted: 'We will entrust this matter to the CBCID, which is the highest investigating body in the state.' In its written order, the Supreme Court recorded that Dave had clarified the suspension was under statutory rules and independent of the high court's direction. The order noted: 'After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petitioner will have his remedies to assail the order of suspension…We would also request the chief justice of the high court to assign this matter and all connected FIRs to another bench.' Jayaram's suspension followed allegations that he abetted the kidnapping of a minor boy, whose elder brother married a woman from a different caste. The woman's family, allegedly opposed to the marriage, is accused of abducting the younger sibling in an attempt to coerce the couple. According to the complaint by the boy's mother, her home was raided by the woman's family members last month, who used Jayaram's official vehicle in the abduction. The boy was later found injured near a hotel. The case has led to the arrest of five individuals, including the woman's father, a lawyer, and a now-dismissed policewoman. Their statements reportedly implicated both Jayaram and KV Kuppam MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy, who has since appeared for questioning in compliance with court directions. Earlier this week, Justice P Velmurugan of the Madras High Court ordered Jayaram's arrest while hearing Moorthy's pre-arrest bail plea, slamming the alleged use of 'Kangaroo courts' and abuse of power.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Day after rapping Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court says ADGP's suspension is in order
Representative Image NEW DELHI: A day after intensely questioning Tamil Nadu's decision to suspend additional DGP H M Jayaram being probed for his role in an alleged kidnapping of a youth, Supreme Court Thursday found M K Stalin govt's administrative step well couched in All-India Service Rules that governs IPS officers. On behalf of TN, senior advocate Siddharth Dave told a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & Manmohan that Jayaram's suspension was not influenced by Madras HC's order to arrest him in the alleged kidnapping case, in which it was alleged that his vehicle was used to whisk away the teen from his home after his brother married a woman of another caste and her parents lodged a complaint. Dave said AIS empowers a state govt to place an IAS or IPS officer under suspension if he is being investigated or facing trial in a criminal case. "We did not want to give the impression that the law will be applied differently to high-ranked officers. Once the probe is complete, and depending on its outcome, a decision will be taken on whether to continue the suspension or revoke it," he said. On nudging of the bench, Dave took instructions from state govt and told the court that TN would have no objection if the probe into the case is transferred from local police to CB-CID. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Buy Brass Idols - Handmade Brass Statues for Home & Gifting Luxeartisanship Buy Now Undo The bench also ordered for transfer of investigation to CB-CID. While staying the HC order for action against Jayaram, the bench said though it would not interfere with the suspension order, it was open to the IPS officer to challenge its legality in an appropriate forum. It also requested the Madras HC chief justice to assign hearing of the cases related to the kidnapping incident to a judge other than the one who had passed orders for action against Jayaram. On Monday, HC's Justice P Velmurugan directed police to arrest Jayaram saying "a strong message should go to public that no one is above law". This order was passed during the hearing of an anticipatory bail plea of MLA K V Kuppam, who is also an accused in the case. HC had refused relief to the MLA and ordered him to cooperate with the investigation into the kidnapping case.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
SC sets aside T.N. ADGP's arrest, shifts probe to CB-CID
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Madras High Court order to secure the custody of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) H.M. Jayaram in an abduction case, and transferred the investigation to the CB-CID after the Tamil Nadu government did not raise any objection to the move. A Vacation Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan further asked the Madras High Court Chief Justice to shift the case and related pending matters to another Bench of the High Court for further hearing. The apex court had, on June 18, expressed shock at the order of the Madras High Court. It had further asked the State to respond on whether the suspension of Mr. Jayaram could be withdrawn. Appearing for the State, senior advocate Siddharth Dave clarified that the suspension was issued on the basis of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1969, and not due to the High Court order. Mr. Dave said the disciplinary authority was empowered under the Rules to place an IPS officer under suspension pending investigation or trial on criminal charges. The State said the probe was under way, and the decision on the suspension would depend on the report of the case investigating officer. The government said the officer in question had remedies to assail the suspension order. Mr. Jayaram's counsel urged the court to set a deadline for the investigation, saying his client was due for retirement next year. 'We cannot put any time on the investigation,' Justice Bhuyan said in response. Mr. Jayaram had sought an interim stay of the Madras High Court order of June 16 directing his arrest. The senior police officer, who was taken into custody from the High Court minutes after the order was issued, had sought regular bail in the crime registered at the Thiruvalangadu police station in Tiruvallur district. He had argued that his arrest was a 'gross violation of the principles of natural justice' as he had neither been named as a party in the proceedings nor afforded an opportunity to present his case. The petition said the High Court had failed to note that there was no extraordinary circumstances warranting his immediate detention or custodial interrogation. 'The HC order disregards the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence until proven petitioner's unblemished track record as a responsible police officer for the past 28 years is at stake,' the petition said. The case relates to the alleged abduction of a boy, aged over 16, from Kalambakkam near Thiruvalangadu on May 10. The allegations are linked to the boy's elder brother, who had married a girl he had met on social media and eloped with her. The girl's family, while searching for her, found the younger brother and took him away. He was later returned. The allegation is that Mr. Jayaram lent his official vehicle to the girl's family.
NDTV
a day ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Supreme Court Orders Transfer Of Kidnapping Case Against Tamil Nadu Senior Cop
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday while hearing suspended ADGP HM Jayaram directed the Tamil Nadu government to transfer the investigation of the teenager's abduction case to CB-CID. The Supreme Court while setting aside the arrest order of the Madras High Court also directed the Chief Justice of the high court to transfer the case to some other bench. However, the suspension of the officer will continue as the Tamil Nadu government told the Supreme Court that his suspension did not come from the high court order, but from rules. Senior lawyer Siddharth Dave appearing for Tamil Nadu told the Supreme Court that he was not suspended because of the orders of the high court, but under Rule 3 of the All India Service Rules, 1969. This rule empowers a disciplinary authority to suspend a member of service in respect of whom or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial is pending. The senior lawyer said that presently the investigation is underway and depending on the report of the investigating officer, a decision will be taken on the suspension order. The Supreme Court, taking this submission on record, said the suspended ADGP would have options to appeal against the suspension. The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by the suspended Assistant Director General of Police HM Jayaram, challenging his arrest in a kidnapping case. The Madras High Court ordered the arrest of Mr Jayaram and criticised Kilvaithinankuppam (SC) MLA 'Poovai' M Jagan Moorthy for "misusing his political power" in connection with the kidnapping of a teenager. The officer approached the Supreme Court saying his arrest order was passed when he was not even a party to the proceedings in the high court. In the last hearing, the Supreme Court expressed shock over the high court order and sought the Tamil Nadu government's reply in withdrawal of suspension. The matter pertains to a May 10 kidnapping of an 18-year-old man in Thiruvallur district. He was reportedly kidnapped by a group seeking information about his elder brother, who had married a woman from Theni district against her family's wishes. The Madras High Court castigated the MLA and the senior police officer for using political muscle to block a lawful investigation. The case has been filed by the mother of the kidnapped man against the group of men who allegedly entered their house in Kalambakkam, searching for her elder son. They allegedly kidnapped the younger son when his elder brother was nowhere to be found. The kidnappers allegedly posed as police officers and later dropped the man near a hotel in a vehicle belonging to Mr Jayaram, the woman said in her complaint.
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Supreme Court sets aside Madras HC order directing arrest of TN police officer in abduction case
The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside a Madras High Court order directing the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police HM Jayaram in a case pertaining to the abduction of a 17-year-old boy, Live Law reported. The top court also transferred the investigation in the case to the state's Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department. The Tamil Nadu government agreed to it. Further, the Supreme Court urged the chief justice of the Madras High Court to transfer matters related to the abduction to a bench different from the one hearing Jayaram's case, The Indian Express reported. The Madras High Court had on June 16 ordered Jayaram's arrest in a kidnapping case that also named Kilvaithinakuppam MLA Poovai M Jagan Moorthy as a suspect. The police officer claimed that he was subsequently taken into custody for about 24 hours, while the state government maintained that he had merely joined the investigation. The case stems from a police complaint filed by one Lakshmi, whose elder son married a woman from Theni district against the wishes of her family. Fearing retaliation, the couple went into hiding. In a bid to trace them, members of the woman's family, with the help of hired men, allegedly abducted Lakshmi's younger son from their home. The 17-year-old boy was later found abandoned near a hotel with visible injuries. During the investigation, the police discovered that an official vehicle linked to Jayaram was allegedly used in the abduction. The woman's family had reportedly also sought help from Moorthy. The MLA is accused of being involved in the abduction and is also alleged to have later prevented the police from questioning him by having party supporters gather around his residence. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court had described the High Court order directing Jayaram's arrest as shocking. 'I have been a judge for 18 years,' Bhuyan had said. 'I never knew I had this power [to direct arrest].' The Supreme Court then asked the Tamil Nadu government why the officer was suspended if he was not arrested. On Thursday, lawyer Siddharth Dave, representing the Tamil Nadu government, said that Jayaram was not suspended because of the High Court order, The Indian Express reported. He said that the official was suspended as per the provisions of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, under which a civil servant against whom a criminal inquiry is pending can be suspended.
