Former Tamil Nadu BJP President K. Annamalai has raised serious concerns over the handling of the Anna University sexual assault case, stating that the investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) was inadequate. He asserted that only a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe could uncover the full truth.
Addressing the media in Coimbatore, Annamalai responded to recent remarks by former Anna University PRO Natarajan. He clarified that DMK Secretary Kottur Shanmugam had only contacted him regarding the death of his brother and claimed no other matter was discussed.
Annamalai highlighted that several significant events unfolded on 24 December 2024—a crucial day in the case. That morning, Gnanasekaran, the accused in the Anna University sexual assault incident, was arrested and released the same day. According to Annamalai, DMK Health Minister Ma. Subramanian’s assistant Tulasi contacted Kottur Shanmugam early that morning. Later that evening, Ma. Subramanian himself reportedly spoke with Shanmugam at 8:32 PM, and shortly after, Shanmugam called Natarajan and at 8:34 PM Kottur Shanmugam called Gnanasekaran to speak .
Annamalai said, “With regard to the Anna University case, I’ve come to know that former PRO Natarajan has sent me a defamation notice demanding ₹50 lakhs. He has also asked that I issue an apology. But I will not be apologizing. I see all of this as an opportunity.”
Later added, “What PRO Natarajan has submitted—I welcome it. Let me handle in court, there’s no problem. I’m only responding to a few of the claims he made. He said that Kottur Shanmugam spoke to him only about the passing of his brother. Let his soul be at peace, and nothing else was discussed. But if you look at the call —why do I keep talking about 24 December repeatedly? It’s because on 24th many issues happened. Gnanasekaran was taken to the police station and later released. So, 24 December is a very crucial day. On the morning of the 24th, the first call Kottur Shanmugam received was from Tulasi, the PA of Ma. Subramanian. After that, several things happened. In the evening, Ma. Subramanian and Kottur Shanmugam spoke directly. Even today, the statement given by Ma. Subramanian is absolutely wrong. When an accused person is taken to a police station, they’re trying to manipulate things. For example, Gnanasekaran was released from the police station on 24th December. At 8:32 PM that evening, Ma. Subramanian called Kottur Shanmugam. Immediately after that call, the very next call made by Kottur Shanmugam was to Anna University’s former PRO Natarajan. Then at 8:34 PM, Kottur Shanmugam and Gnanasekaran spoke.”
Annamalai questioned why the SIT had not looked into these communications or examined his own role in the context of these events. He pointed out that there is little public information available about the charge sheet or court proceedings and emphasized that judgments are typically based on evidence presented by both legal teams—which, in this case, appears insufficient.
Annamalai critically questioned the SIT’s investigation, asking why their inquiry wasn’t exhaustive. He specifically challenged the SIT on why DMK Health Minister Ma. Subramaniam and Kottur Shanmugam were not summoned or interrogated.
He further revealed that after the alleged incident, Gnanasekaran contacted SI Gunasekara Kannan of Guindy Law and Order twice on the same day. This, he claimed, was another line of inquiry ignored by the SIT. He also questioned the frequent calls between Kotturpuram SI Govardhan and Kottur Shanmugam on 24 December, asking why such contact was necessary if the incident took place on the 25th.
He said, “I’ve already mentioned the involvement of two police officers. One of police officer is Sub-Inspector Gunasekar Kannan from the Guindy Law and Order division. If you look into it, after the sexual assault incident at Anna University on the 23rd, the very first person Gnanasekaran called was this Sub-Inspector, Gunasekar Kannan. Shouldn’t he have been summoned and questioned? The SIT didn’t investigated that. Moreover, Gnanasekaran spoke to Gunasekar Kannan two more times later that same night. Aren’t these legitimate questions that any of us would ask? The SIT or the government should answer these. Why did the accused immediately switching on the phone first call a Sub-Inspector after the incident occurred? Similarly, on the 24th, when Gnanasekaran went to the police station, why was there constant communication between Kotturpuram Sub-Inspector Govardhan and Kottur Shanmugam? What was the need for that conversation on the 25th as well? I didn’t mention the Sub-Inspector’s name back then, but I’m saying it today.”
He added, “These are valid questions. The SIT must answer. Ma. Subramanian says he just had a casual conversation, but after the incident, he didn’t speak for five days. Yet, he spoke with Kottur Shanmugam on the 24th. He is a Health Minister, why would he speak to him? Why did his PA Tulasi contact Kottur Shanmugam in the morning of the 24th? All of us only came to know about the incident on the 25th. Then why was there so much conversation already happening on the 24th during the police picking him? These are the questions we are continuing to raise.”
Annamalai rejected the claim that the calls were solely related to Shanmugam’s brother’s death, citing Natarajan’s long-standing influence within the university, even post-retirement. He insisted that the matter should be pursued in court and welcomed legal scrutiny. Annamalai also stated that he is actively assisting the victim in seeking legal recourse and plans to formally request a CBI inquiry into the case.
He said, “Now, former Anna University PRO Natarajan claims the call was just about his brother’s death. I cannot accept that explanation. His brother may have passed away, but the pattern of calls, his influence at Anna University even post-retirement he had authority at the university’s gate control all raise serious concerns. Let the matter go to court. These questions must be answered in court.”
He further alleged that a video found on the mobile phone seized from Gnanasekaran contained footage of another individual who has not yet been identified, and the SIT failed to investigate this lead. He also mentioned that a forensic report revealed the presence of another video involving a different woman, which also went unexamined.
Annamalai challenged the SIT stating, “I am challenging the SIT. According to me, the mobile phone that was seized from Gnanasekaran contained another video as well. But the SIT did not make any effort to trace the victim in that video. Who is the woman featured in that video? The SIT made no attempt to find out. They seem to have taken the approach that unless the woman comes forward and files a complaint, they won’t act. One complaint was filed on 14 May, and a second one followed. They are investigating only those two. After Gnanasekaran’s phone was sent to Tamil Nadu’s forensic lab and returned, it was found that there were more videos on the device. The SIT had a clear responsibility to trace the identity of the woman in the other video and take her statement. But they didn’t do that.”
Annamalai stated that he is ready to cooperate with any summons issued by the SIT but warned against using contempt of court threats to silence him. He emphasized that courts can only deliver verdicts based on the charge sheets and evidence presented by police, and therefore, a deeper and more independent investigation is essential.
He concluded by saying that even if defamation cases are filed against him, he stands by the victim and will continue to advocate for a CBI-led probe into the case.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
