A day after the sentencing of Gnanasekaran, the prime accused in the Anna University sexual assault case, Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader K Annamalai made allegations of high-profile political interference in the investigation.
On June 3, claiming to have accessed certain call detail records (CDR), Annamalai made several allegations including against Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Minister Ma Subramaniam and a Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) division secretary.
Earlier, on June 2, the Chennai Mahila Court awarded life imprisonment of 30 years without remission and a fine of Rs 90,000 to Gnanasekaran. The verdict, finding Gnanasekaran guilty of all 11 charges against him, was passed by Chennai Mahila court judge Rajalakshmi on May 28. The assault on the student took place on December 23, 2024.
In his video, Annamalai recalls that Gnanasekaran was taken into custody by Kotturpuram police on December 24 and released the same day. He was arrested again, a day later, on December 25. The BJP leader asked why this had happened.
Citing the alleged CDR, Annamalai claimed, “According to the government prosecutor, Gnanasekaran’s mobile phone was on flight mode at the time of the assault. The phone remained on flight mode until 8:52 pm that night [December 23]. That is true, that’s what the CDR also indicates. After flight mode was switched off on the phone, the first call was made at 8:55 pm to a police personnel holding the rank of Station House Officer (SHO).” Adding that he had “great respect for the police,” Annamalai said that he would wait for 48 hours for the state government’s response before publicly releasing the name and mobile number of the SHO whom Gnanasekaran allegedly called.
“What reason did Gnanasekaran have to call the police officer at 8:52 pm? Why did the same officer call Gnanasekaran back, six minutes later, at 9:01 pm? So, the first phone call made by the accused was to a police officer at a local station. Was this investigated? Was this included in the chargesheet?” Annamalai further alleged.
In the video, Annamalai continues: “Based on the CDR, on December 24, Gnanasekaran made six calls to Kottur Shanmugam, a local DMK division secretary, before being taken into custody. The first call was made at 7:27 am and the fifth call was made at 4:01 pm. Gnanasekaran was taken to Kotturpuram station after that and there were no calls between the two men for four hours. After Gnanasekaran left the station, he spoke to Kottur Shanmugam again over a phone call.”
Annamalai then went on to claim that Kottur Shanmugam and Ma Subramanian spoke on the phone twice after Gnanasekaran was released from the Kotturpuram police station on the night of December 24. These calls, he claims, were made at 8.30 pm and 8:34 pm.
It is unclear at present how Annamalai accessed the CDR of the accused or Shanmugam’s.
Annamalai also alleged that Shanmugam had spoken on the phone 13 times between December 23 and 26 to a man named Natarajan, whom the BJP leader claims is an “important official” in Anna University. Annamalai further alleged that Shanmugam had also spoken on the phone to a certain senior police officer at 8:59 pm and 9:07 pm on December 24. Annamalai, however, declined to reveal the police officer’s name for the time being.
Referring to the BNS section 238(b) (causing disappearance of evidence of offense, or giving false information to screen offender) charge against Gnanasekaran—one of the 11 charges he was convicted of—Annamalai claimed that the alleged phone calls had been made to “destroy evidence”. The BJP leader also asked if the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had questioned Shanmugam, Ma Subramaniam and the unnamed police officer.
Additionally, Annamalai claimed that the survivor had been discouraged on two occasions by police personnel on December 24 from lodging a complaint. The two police personnel had allegedly said that pressing charges would “ruin her future”.
It may be noted that a Times of India article published on June 3 did mention that the last call from Gnanasekaran’s phone on December 23, 2024, was made at 6.29 pm after which the phone had been put on flight mode until 8.52 pm. The report added that this window of time helped clinch Gnanasekaran’s guilt in court. However, the report did not disclose any details of calls made after the accused turned off flight mode on his phone.
The case history
The crime took place on the night of December 23, 2024, when a female student of Anna University was with her boyfriend on campus. Gnanasekaran trespassed into the university, sexually assaulted her, and held her against her will for 40 minutes. He filmed the couple and later used the footage to blackmail her.
The survivor reported the incident to a professor from the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) committee, and a police complaint was filed immediately. Gnanasekaran was soon arrested by the police on December 25.
Gnanasekaran, a known history-sheeter from Kotturpuram in Chennai, already has seven cases pending against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Tamil Nadu government also invoked the stringent Goondas Act, enabling preventive detention without bail for up to a year.
Soon after his arrest, photographs of Gnanasekaran with DMK functionaries surfaced on social media, leading to political controversy. Though the DMK initially denied any affiliation, opposition parties circulated photographs showing Gnanasekaran purportedly holding a position within the party.
Subsequently, the Madras High Court ordered the formation of an SIT, who submitted a detailed chargesheet to the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Saidapet on February 25 this year. The case was subsequently transferred to the Mahila Court in Allikulam.
The case also stirred controversy after the Tamil Nadu police uploaded the First Information Report (FIR) related to the assault on their public website, revealing sensitive identification details of the survivor. Chennai Police Commissioner A Arun later attributed the leak to a technical glitch during the transition from the IPC to the BNS, stating that FIRs in sensitive cases are usually auto-locked in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network Systems (CCTNS). A separate case was registered to investigate the source of the leak.