Supreme Court Slams Tamil Nadu Over ADGP Suspension | You Can’t Do This, This Is Very Demoralising | Shocked By High Court’s Arrest Order
Kiran Raj
On June 18, the Supreme Court raised serious questions over the Tamil Nadu government's decision to suspend Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram in connection with an alleged abduction case. The Court also expressed astonishment at the Madras High Court's directive ordering Jayaram's arrest, which was passed while hearing an anticipatory bail plea filed by one of the accused in the case.
The bench, comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, was hearing a petition filed by Jayaram challenging the High Court's directive. The justices queried the state on whether the suspension was warranted, particularly since the senior officer had already joined the investigation.
Jayaram's counsel informed the Court that he was arrested on June 16 and subsequently released around 5 PM the following day after approaching the Supreme Court. Despite his release, he was placed under suspension. The counsel highlighted that Jayaram had not even been named a party in the anticipatory bail petition that led to the High Court’s arrest order. However, the counsel for the state contested this, stating that Jayaram was never formally arrested.
Challenging the suspension, Justice Bhuyan observed, “You can't do this. This is very demoralising,” while Justice Manmohan noted Jayaram’s 28 years of service in the force. The state's counsel responded that the only requirement was for the officer to cooperate with the investigation. The bench questioned why suspension was necessary once he had done so. “You obtain instructions to withdraw the suspension order; he’s a senior police officer,” Justice Bhuyan advised the state.
The bench also expressed dissatisfaction with the High Court’s arrest order. “These types of orders—it is shocking actually,” remarked Justice Bhuyan. Justice Manmohan, in a lighter tone, added, “I have been a judge for 18 years. I never knew I had this power [to direct arrest].” The court adjourned the matter to the next day, directing the state to seek instructions on whether the suspension order could be withdrawn.
In its order, the bench noted: “Mr. Chaudhari, for the petitioner, submits that yesterday the petitioner was released at 5 PM, however, placed on suspension. The learned state counsel submits that the petitioner was not arrested and that he joined the investigation. On query by the Court, he seeks time to obtain instructions on whether the suspension order against the petitioner, in view of the High Court's order, would be withdrawn. List tomorrow.”
The controversy began with an anticipatory bail application filed by KV Kuppam MLA "Poovai" Jagan Moorthy in a case registered at the Thiruvallur Police Station. The case stems from a complaint by a woman named Lakshmi, who alleged that her elder son married a girl without her family’s consent. Following this, the girl’s family, accompanied by unidentified individuals, allegedly stormed Lakshmi’s home in search of the couple. With the couple in hiding, the miscreants reportedly abducted Lakshmi’s younger son, who is 18 years old.
Lakshmi further alleged that her younger son was eventually found near a hotel, injured. Significantly, it has been claimed that he was transported in the official vehicle of ADGP Jayaram. Allegations also suggest the involvement of MLA Jagan Moorthy in the conspiracy.
Justice P Velmurugan of the High Court had directed police action against Jayaram under the law, asserting that as a public servant, he was answerable to the people. The judge held that the law should be applied equally, reinforcing that no one is above it.
Case Title: H.M. Jayaram v. The Inspector of Police and Another
Diary No.: 33224-2025
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Justice Manmohan
