Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Madras High Court Rejects CBI Probe Plea in POCSO Case
The Madras High Court decided not to move the investigation to the CBI.
The case concerns POCSO allegations involving Gem Granites owner R. Veeramani.
A person named Vaaraki had asked for an independent CBI investigation.
The petitioner said senior officials might affect the investigation.
The court said the police investigation team had only started about four days earlier.
It said investigators need time to collect evidence.
The judge also said children, including Scheduled Caste children, were victims in the case.
The court therefore allowed the SIT to continue investigating for now.
The Madras High Court dismissed a PIL seeking a CBI probe into POCSO cases involving Gem Granites owner R. Veeramani.
The petitioner, Vaaraki, alleged that high-ranking officials were involved and questioned whether the SIT could investigate independently.
The court said the SIT had been formed only about four days earlier and needed time to gather evidence.
Justice V. Lakshminarayanan criticized the petition as a “publicity interest litigation” and warned against politicizing the sensitive case.
The court noted that four women officers had been appointed and said transferring the investigation immediately would be improper.
- Who
- The Madras High Court, Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, petitioner Vaaraki, the SIT, and Gem Granites owner R. Veeramani.
- What
- The court dismissed a PIL seeking transfer of the SIT investigation into POCSO cases to the CBI.
- When
- The petition was dismissed on Wednesday; the court said the SIT had been formed about four days earlier.
- Where
- The proceedings took place before the Madras High Court in Chennai, Tamil Nadu.
- Why
- The court said the SIT needed breathing time to collect evidence and that an immediate transfer would be improper.
Petitioner’s Position
Court’s Position
Whether the probe should be transferred
Petitioner’s Position
Vaaraki argued that alleged involvement of high-ranking officials created doubts about whether the SIT could investigate independently and effectively, and sought a CBI probe.
Court’s Position
The court said the SIT had only recently been formed, had begun investigating, and should be given time to collect evidence before any transfer was considered.
Concerns about withheld evidence
Petitioner’s Position
The petitioner alleged that the investigating team was silent about evidence concerning some high-ranking officials.
Court’s Position
The judge questioned how such allegations could be made without allowing the SIT time to conduct its investigation.
Nature of the PIL
Petitioner’s Position
The petition presented itself as a request for an independent investigation into a sensitive case.
Court’s Position
The court described it as a “publicity interest litigation” and warned that the matter should not be politicized.
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Judge
- Justice V. Lakshminarayanan
- Petitioner
- Vaaraki
- Investigation sought
- Transfer of the SIT probe to the CBI
- Case subject
- POCSO cases involving R. Veeramani
- Investigation status
- The SIT had commenced its investigation and was formed about four days earlier
- Court’s concern
- The court emphasized the sensitivity of the case and the children identified as victims