SC sets aside Madras HC order against ADGP Jayaram, transfers probe to CB-CID
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story linksThe Supreme Court, on Thursday, set aside the Madras High Court’s controversial directive ordering the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in connection with the abduction of an 18-year-old boy, and transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch - Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).A vacation bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the suspended IPS officer, also directed the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to assign the case and other connected matters to a different bench."Looking into the controversial circumstances in which the impugned order had been passed, we are of the view that investigation of this case be handed over to CB-CID. That apart, we also request the Learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras to assign the case to another bench. With this, the direction of the HC to secure and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside," the Supreme Court ordered.The apex court had expressed concern over the Madras High Court’s decision to order action against a senior police officer in the absence of any direct material implicating him and questioned the timing and legality of his 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,” Justice Bhuyan had remarked during the hearing on June 18.Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, clarified before the court that ADGP Jayaram was not suspended based on the High Court's direction but under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which allow such action during a criminal investigation. The court noted that Jayaram had the right to independently challenge his suspension order.The state had initially told the apex court that Jayaram was not arrested but had merely joined the investigation. Jayaram’s counsel, however, argued that the officer was taken into custody shortly after the High Court's directive and held for 24 hours without proper notice or process.The case involves allegations that Jayaram facilitated the kidnapping of a teenager by allowing his official vehicle to be used by a group trying to locate an inter-caste couple who had eloped. The complaint, filed by the boy’s mother Lakshmi, states that her elder son Dhanush married 21-year-old Vijaya Sri from Theni against her family’s wishes, prompting her relatives and hired men to abduct her younger son in retaliation. The boy was later found abandoned, injured, and traumatised.One of the key accused in the case, Puratchi Bharatham Party MLA Poovai Jagan Moorthy, allegedly orchestrated the abduction in collusion with a dismissed police constable, Maheshwari. Both Maheshwari and another accused, a party-affiliated advocate, reportedly confessed to the involvement of Moorthy and the use of Jayaram’s official vehicle in the crime. Approximately Rs 7.5 lakh in cash was also recovered during the investigation.The Madras High Court had passed the arrest direction against ADGP Jayaram on June 16 while hearing Moorthy’s anticipatory bail plea. Despite Moorthy’s appearance before the court, which protected him from arrest, the High Court ordered the police to “secure and take action” against Jayaram. The court also stated that public servants must be accountable and no one is above the law.Jayaram, who is due to retire next year, argued in his plea that the High Court’s order was arbitrary and in violation of his fundamental rights. “The HC order disregards the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” his counsel said, stressing the officer’s unblemished 28-year service record.(With IANS inputs)
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links
THE Supreme Court has set aside the Madras High Court’s controversial directive ordering the arrest of Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in connection with the abduction of an 18-year-old boy, and transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch - Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).
A vacation bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, while hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the suspended IPS officer, also directed the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to assign the case and other connected matters to a different bench.
"Looking into the controversial circumstances in which the impugned order had been passed, we are of the view that investigation of this case be handed over to CB-CID. That apart, we also request the Learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras to assign the case to another bench. With this, the direction of the HC to secure and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside," the Supreme Court ordered.
The apex court had expressed concern over the Madras High Court’s decision to order action against a senior police officer in the absence of any direct material implicating him and questioned the timing and legality of his 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,” Justice Bhuyan had remarked during the hearing on June 18.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, clarified before the court that ADGP Jayaram was not suspended based on the High Court's direction but under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, which allow such action during a criminal investigation. The court noted that Jayaram had the right to independently challenge his suspension order.
The state had initially told the apex court that Jayaram was not arrested but had merely joined the investigation. Jayaram’s counsel, however, argued that the officer was taken into custody shortly after the High Court's directive and held for 24 hours without proper notice or process.
The case involves allegations that Jayaram facilitated the kidnapping of a teenager by allowing his official vehicle to be used by a group trying to locate an inter-caste couple who had eloped. The complaint, filed by the boy’s mother Lakshmi, states that her elder son Dhanush married 21-year-old Vijaya Sri from Theni against her family’s wishes, prompting her relatives and hired men to abduct her younger son in retaliation. The boy was later found abandoned, injured, and traumatised.
One of the key accused in the case, Puratchi Bharatham Party MLA Poovai Jagan Moorthy, allegedly orchestrated the abduction in collusion with a dismissed police constable, Maheshwari. Both Maheshwari and another accused, a party-affiliated advocate, reportedly confessed to the involvement of Moorthy and the use of Jayaram’s official vehicle in the crime. Approximately Rs 7.5 lakh in cash was also recovered during the investigation.
The Madras High Court had passed the arrest direction against ADGP Jayaram on June 16 while hearing Moorthy’s anticipatory bail plea. Despite Moorthy’s appearance before the court, which protected him from arrest, the High Court ordered the police to “secure and take action” against Jayaram. The court also stated that public servants must be accountable and no one is above the law.
Jayaram, who is due to retire next year, argued in his plea that the High Court’s order was arbitrary and in violation of his fundamental rights. “The HC order disregards the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty,” his counsel said, stressing the officer’s unblemished 28-year service record.
(With IANS inputs)
