The Madras High Court on Friday delivered a stinging rebuke to the city police and VCK (Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi) leader Thol. Thirumavalavan over last week’s incident where a lawyer was assaulted near the court premises. The judge sharply questioned the police’s “hostile” action of registering a case against both the victim and the assailants and condemned Thirumavalavan for his role, stating he “seemed to be acting in an inciting manner.”
The controversy stems from an incident where a car carrying VCK President Thirumavalavan allegedly hit a scooter ridden by lawyer Rajiv Gandhi near the Madras High Court. When Gandhi confronted the occupants about the collision, he was allegedly brutally assaulted by men accompanying the VCK leader. A video of the incident went viral, sparking widespread criticism.
Thirumavalavan’s Explanation and Controversial Remarks
In his defense, Thirumavalavan claimed that the scooter rider had intentionally stopped in front of the car to pick a fight. He denied that his party men assaulted the lawyer and alleged a conspiracy by the BJP and RSS behind the entire episode.
However, his subsequent remarks ignited further outrage, he even justified the thrashing by his cadre as he said the motorist glared at him and hence his cadre beat him. Thirumavalavan even said, “And even that, was the hitting done properly.” This statement was widely condemned for its dismissive and provocative tone.
Police Action and Legal Fallout
Following the incident, the Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Bar Council formed a committee to investigate the matter. Meanwhile, the police registered FIRs – against the VCK men under two sections, and surprisingly, against the lawyer, Rajiv Gandhi, under three sections.
This dual FIR prompted another lawyer, K. Balu, to file a petition in the High Court. Balu, who had also faced threats from a Cuddalore lawyer using obscene language in connection with this case, sought police protection and action against those threatening him.
Lopsided FIR and Legal Fallout
The Esplanade police registered cases after a 10-day delay based on complaints from both sides. However, the FIRs showed a stark contrast.
In the complaint filed by the assaulted lawyer, Rajiv Gandhi, which mentioned that Thirumavalavan “incited” the attack, a case was registered against the assailants under only two sections: using obscene language and attacking with intent to cause injury. Thirumavalavan’s name was omitted.
In the complaint filed by VCK advocate Parvendan, the police registered a case against Rajiv Gandhi under three more severe sections: obstructing a person with wrongful intent, threatening, and intentionally insulting with intent to disturb the peace.
Lawyer Rajiv Gandhi’s side has questioned the police’s basis for including the “threatening” section, as the VCK advocate’s complaint allegedly contained no mention of any threats.
High Court’s Scathing Observations and Questions
During the hearing of these petitions, Justice Satish Kumar did not mince words. The court raised several pointed questions to the police:
“On what basis is the case filed against both parties?” the judge asked, expressing astonishment at how a case was registered against the lawyer who was the victim of the attack. He further asked, “But on what basis was an FIR registered against both parties? … when only one party had joined in attacking a lawyer?”
The judge was deeply critical of the police’s inaction, questioning what the police personnel present at the scene were doing during the attack and opining that he “believed the police were silent on the matter.”
In a major condemnation of the VCK leader’s conduct, Justice Satish Kumar observed, “The leader who was present there, instead of controlling the situation, seems to have acted in a manner that provoked the problem.” The court recorded its “strong condemnation that his speech in a way that could encourage violence is condemnable.”
The judge noted the profundity of the incident, stating, “Such a terrible act had taken place in the High Court premises… This incident was recorded in all CCTVs. However, it is very sad that the police have only registered a case and have not taken any action so far. What were the police personnel present at the spot doing when the attack was taking place?”
He was unequivocal in his assessment of the police’s dual FIR, calling it “hostile that the police is pursuing this case against both the victim and the attacker,” and pointedly asked, “To satisfy whom has the police taken this action?”
“சம்பவத்தை கட்டுப்படுத்த வேண்டிய தலைவரே தாக்குதலை தூண்டலாமா ”? திருமாவளவன் மீது நீதிபதி அதிருப்தி.!#VCK | #ChennaiHC | #Advocate | #Thirumavalavan | #PolimerNews pic.twitter.com/XRHD6f0Hco
— Polimer News (@polimernews) October 18, 2025
Court’s Directives
The High Court has issued firm directives to the police – to seize the CCTV footage of the entire incident, to conduct a thorough investigation based on this evidence, and to submit a report on the action taken against the perpetrators of the attack.
The court’s strong remarks have put the police investigation and the conduct of the political leader under the spotlight. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
