Madras HC refuses to transfer Veeramani POCSO case probe to CBI, says SIT needs time

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court refused to transfer the probe into the Granite baron R Veeramani case to the CBI, saying the Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted only four days ago, should be given time to investigate the sensitive case.

Justice V Lakshminarayanan said the Tamil Nadu government had constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the offence and that it should be given time to collect all the evidence. The court said the police did not have a crystal ball or magic wand to gather all evidence at once and that the SIT should be allowed to continue its investigation.

The SIT was formed only four days ago, on September 25, 2026, and investigation takes time, especially in the present case. Since the SIT had commenced its probe, seeking a CBI investigation without giving it breathing space would not be proper, the court said.

Journalist Varaaki approached the court seeking transfer of the probe from the SIT to the CBI. He argued that high-ranking officials were involved and expressed apprehension that the SIT might not conduct an independent and effective investigation, warranting a probe by an independent agency.

In his plea, he said an independent investigation was necessary to ascertain whether there was any interference, improper influence or financial or other consideration affecting the probe, whether the pen drive was properly preserved and forensically examined, and whether any relevant investigative lead was omitted, disregarded or prematurely abandoned.

During the hearing, the court orally observed that the case was sensitive as it involved children, some of whom belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. “I’m more concerned about the children. You can’t politicise it. You’re not understanding the seriousness of it. Please don’t use this for publicity,” the court remarked.

The petitioner expressed apprehension that an independent probe would not be conducted and that the investigating team was silent on evidence against some high-ranking officials. The court questioned how such allegations could be made without giving the SIT time to investigate.

“We can transfer it to the FBI an entirely independent agency outside India. How can you claim that they are remaining silent? This appears to be a publicity-driven PIL. Four women officers have been appointed. Why interfere without allowing them an opportunity to investigate? I suspect this is at the instance of the accused. You seem to have some grievance against the previous regime. Do not use children for that,” the court orally remarked.

When the petitioner’s counsel said he had materials showing the involvement of some persons, the court asked him to submit them to the SIT. State Public Prosecutor John Sathyan said anyone was at liberty to approach the SIT with relevant materials and assured the court that they would be examined and taken to their logical conclusion.

The court then directed Varaaki to appear before the SIT on October 1 and submit all materials in his possession related to the case.