Subscribe
The Madras High Court has passed an interim order restraining media outlets, intermediaries, digital platforms, and unidentified persons from publishing or circulating videos connected to the case against Gem Granites’ R Veeramani, registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan passed the order on Friday, September 25, while hearing a petition filed by Tulir Charitable Trust, which works on the prevention and healing of child sexual abuse. The court also directed the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case to issue a press release every week on the progress of the investigation.
The John Doe order covers unnamed media organisations, social media accounts, and other entities, besides the respondents named in the petition. It restrains them from publishing, broadcasting, uploading, transmitting, sharing, circulating, or reproducing any video relating to Crime No. 174 of 2025 registered by the Central Crime Branch, Chennai.
The court also directed anyone who had already uploaded material connected to the case to remove it by September 26 and ordered the police to take steps to ensure its removal, if necessary. A compliance report is to be filed at the next hearing.
However, the court did not impose a blanket restriction on discussions about child abuse. It said media outlets and other entities could discuss issues arising from child abuse, as long as the discussions did not touch upon the factual matrix of the crime.
The petition was filed after child sexual exploitation and abuse material (CSEAM) connected to the case was circulated on social and mainstream media. Tulir alleged that some media outlets had also discussed details of the case and uploaded such material.
During the hearing, State Public Prosecutor R John Sathyan told the court that the police had taken the circulation of the leaked material seriously. He said the Cyber Crime Wing had approached Google and Meta to block URLs carrying material connected to the case, and that the police were investigating how the videos reached those who uploaded them.
The police had identified 28 YouTube channels on which material connected to the case had been uploaded, the court was told. The Union government also said it would take immediate steps to block URLs containing explicit material connected to the crime.
The court noted that the investigation was at an advanced and crucial stage, and that police were still trying to determine whether there were additional victims. Justice Lakshminarayanan said the circulation of videos or photographs could discourage other victims from approaching the police.
While acknowledging freedom of speech and the press’s right to disseminate information, the judge said those rights carried corresponding duties towards both children and the accused. He also said the court would examine whether the right to report extended to a “right to media trial”.
During the hearing, the judge cautioned against treating the case as a matter of television ratings. He told counsel for a television channel that there were things more important in life than Television Rating Points (TRPs).
The court further observed that the rights of an accused could not be disregarded merely because of the nature of the allegations against them. “How much ever you abhor his acts; assuming he did it, he also has certain rights,” the judge said during the hearing.
The four-member SIT constituted by the Director General of Police comprises Additional Commissioner of Police P C Thenmozhi, Joint Commissioner of Police Disha Mittal, Superintendent of Police J Mutharasi, and Deputy Commissioner of Police VV Geethanjali.
The case was initially closed by the police in February 2026, citing inadequate evidence, according to the petition. The POCSO court declined to accept the closure report and ordered further investigation, following which additional material was gathered and the accused were arrested and remanded in judicial custody. The petitioner told the High Court that several other victims had subsequently been identified and their statements recorded.
Meanwhile, the Southern India Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SICCI) has removed Gem Granites founder R Veeramani from its primary membership. Veeramani, who had previously served as the chamber’s president, was removed following concerns raised by SICCI members after his arrest in connection with the POCSO case.
The High Court will hear the matter again on September 30 after the respondents file their counter-affidavits.
DMK files defamation suit
The High Court order came as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) also approached the Madras High Court with a defamation suit against Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) ministers Aadhav Arjuna and CTR Nirmal Kumar over statements alleging that the party had shielded Veeramani during its tenure in government.
The suit, filed through DMK general secretary Duraimurugan, also names the TVK’s IT wing and seeks Rs 1.01 crore in damages. The DMK has alleged that the ministers made “baseless and defamatory statements” implying that the party had failed to act against Veeramani.
Justice K Govindarajan Thilakavadi heard preliminary arguments on September 25 and directed the defendants to file their counter-affidavits. The matter has been posted to September 28.
The DMK has also sought permission to implead X Corp, Meta Platforms and YouTube, according to the plea. The party said it had sought removal of the alleged defamatory posts but that the companies were based outside the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court.
The judge orally asked the parties not to politicise the issue, observing that such statements could affect the investigation. “It is about the lives of minor girl children. The issue is very sensitive and all of us have a social responsibility,” the judge said.
In its complaint, the DMK said the FIR in the POCSO case was registered on October 7, 2025, a day after a child rights activist handed over a video clipping to the police. The party claimed the investigation thereafter proceeded according to law and denied having interfered in the probe or having any connection with the accused.
The DMK also referred to a September 22 statement by its deputy general secretary Kanimozhi Rajathi Karunanidhi, saying the party had consistently demanded that offenders in sexual offences be prosecuted and punished according to law.
The party alleged that Aadhav Arjuna and Nirmal Kumar had made the statements to gain political mileage ahead of the Madurantakam and Dharapuram byelections. It also alleged that the TVK IT wing had published and circulated the statements through its social media accounts. These are allegations made in the DMK’s plaint and have not been adjudicated by the court.
