In a strongly worded rebuke, the Madras High Court questioned the conduct of the Tamil Nadu police in a sexual assault case, asking whether the state is being governed by the rule of law or functioning as a police state. The court expressed serious concern over the police acting as though they themselves were the lawmakers, rather than abiding by the law.
The remarks came during the hearing of a case involving a 28-year-old woman from Chennai who had lodged a complaint at the Mylapore All-Women Police Station in April. In her complaint, she alleged that while working in Delhi, she had entered into a relationship with a man who, exploiting her financial vulnerability, promised to marry her. She claimed he forced her into a sexual relationship, which led to pregnancy, and later coerced her into having an abortion. She also accused him of defrauding her of ₹12 lakh.
When she discovered he was planning to marry another woman, she tried to intervene, prompting him and his mother to confront and threaten her. A case was registered against the accused under charges including sexual assault on 29 April, and the matter is currently pending before the Saidapet court.
However, the survivor filed a petition in the Madras High Court seeking an order for her statement to be formally recorded before the magistrate. She raised concerns that the accused was seeking anticipatory bail and that the police had yet to document her statement. She also accused the police of intentionally delaying the process and attempting to transfer the case to Delhi. She stated that both her safety and that of the accused’s mother were at risk if proper action wasn’t taken.
When the case was heard by Justice P. Velmurugan, he summoned the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate of Saidapet, R. Parthiban, for an explanation. The judge asked why the victim’s statement had not yet been recorded.
The magistrate responded that a summons had been issued to the police, but they had returned it without executing the order.
Condemning the police’s handling of the case, Justice Velmurugan criticized their actions as deliberate obstruction, stated, “The police are making the courts complicit in their fraud. Such actions by the police force are condemnable. Why are you harassing the victim who came to record a statement? Even criminals are not subjected to this much harassment. Which law states that a statement must be recorded only in a specific Magistrate court? The police department must clarify this.”
He further lashed out, stating, “The police treat victims who come in mental distress in a disgusting manner. They refuse to act according to the law and behave with arrogance. Instead of operating by the law, the police operate on the principle that ‘what we say is the law.’ Is this a police state?”
The judge cautioned that if such misconduct by the police continues, there may come a time when the police force itself becomes irrelevant. He remarked that corruption within the department has reached an alarming level of 99.9%, and if it crosses the remaining 1%, it would amount to a “centum” in corruption. The judge noted that such actions not only place a heavy burden on the judiciary but also create significant challenges for the government. He further expressed regret that the government appears to be backing the police despite their wrongdoing. He warned that officers who behave in this manner would face dismissal, and orders to that effect would be issued.
Following this stern warning, the judge directed the police to present the victim before the Saidapet Magistrate to officially record her statement, and then closed the petition.
This isn’t the first instance where the Tamil Nadu police once praised as second only to Scotland Yard have come under judicial scrutiny. In recent times, courts have issued several warnings against their conduct. Here are some notable examples.
Case 1: Custodial Death of Ajith Kumar
On 1 July 2025, the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench delivered strong remarks against the Tamil Nadu police over the suspected custodial killing of 27-year-old Ajith Kumar, a temple security guard from Sivaganga. The court found the government’s explanation inadequate and questioned the delay and irregularities in the investigation.
While hearing the case, the court remarked, “Police drunk with power” brutally attacked Ajith Kumar, who was arrested on 27 June for the theft of temple jewellery. The bench further condemned the state’s role in the incident, stating, “The state has killed its own citizen.”
The government’s response to the incident was called “insufficient,” and the court expressed concern over procedural delays and possible attempts to obstruct a fair investigation.
Case 2: Puthiya Tamilagam Rally Ban
In January 2025, Justice P. Velmurugan questioned the intentions behind the last-minute denial of permission for a rally organized by the Puthiya Tamilagam (PT) party. The judge asked, “Is the Tamil Nadu police a government agency or a political agency?”
The query was raised during a writ petition filed by PT founder K. Krishnasamy, who accused the Greater Chennai Police of rejecting permission for a planned rally on 7 November 2024 just a day before the event.
The judge further noted, “Let the police explain why did they pass the rejection order at the last moment.”
Dr. K. Krishnasamy, PT’s founder, argued that the sudden denial resulted in inconvenience and financial loss to party members who had traveled from across the state. The police later claimed the rally was denied based on intelligence about potential law and order disruptions, but the court demanded further explanation and reserved the matter for continued hearing.
Case 3: Mishandling of Anna University Sexual Harassment Case
In December 2024, the High Court criticized the police for mishandling a high-profile sexual assault case involving a student at Anna University. A division bench initiated suo motu proceedings after reports surfaced that the survivor’s identity and personal information were leaked by law enforcement.
Bench questioned, “Advocate general P. S. Raman is saying police are investigating the case. If the matter is under investigation, how can the commissioner of police say there is a lone accused?”
The bench, comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and V. Lakshminarayanan, rebuked the state government for attempting to take political credit for arresting the accused while ignoring its failure to prevent the crime.
They questioned why the Police Commissioner held a press briefing during an active investigation and whether proper authorization was obtained for such a move. Bench asked, “How could the commissioner conduct a press meet? Was prior permission taken from his higher-ups for it?” The bench further observed, “How would an investigating officer, who reports to the commissioner, take a different stand in case the investigation reveals involvement of more people?” and
Justice Subramaniam also rebuked the state’s attempt to gain credit for a quick arrest, “How can you say it must be appreciated because an accused has been arrested?”
Advocate R. Varalakshmi, in her letter to the court, expressed concern that the accused had a long criminal record and possible political connections, raising doubts about the integrity of the investigation. The court also disapproved of the premature publicizing of the FIR and the exposure of the survivor’s identity.
Case 4: Kallakurichi Hooch Tragedy
The devastating hooch tragedy in Kallakurichi, which claimed the lives of 68 people from marginalized communities, led the High Court to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Hearing a batch of PILs, a division bench of Justices D. Krishnakumar and P. B. Balaji ordered the CB-CID to hand over all case documents to the CBI within two weeks. The CBI was directed to investigate the matter comprehensively and submit its final report promptly.
In a separate order, Justice Balaji called the incident a grim reminder of how alcohol abuse can destroy communities. He criticized the reinstatement of a senior officer suspended after the tragedy and condemned the absence of disciplinary action against those responsible.
He further noted a disturbing link between illicit liquor manufacturers and police officials. The judge expressed concern over how the main accused, Govindaraj alias Kannukutty, continued his activities despite multiple prior cases, indicating that law enforcement had willfully ignored his operations.
Justice Balaji said, “The state was not able to demonstrate what disciplinary action has been taken against these errant officials.”
He further added, “All these leads us to believe there was an unholy connection between the manufacturers of the illicit liquor and the police officials. It also bewilders us that the prime accused Kannukutty alias Govindaraj, despite several cases booked, admittedly goes on scot-free selling the illicit arrack.”
The judge accused the police of, “turning a blind eye” to the rampant sale of illegal liquor, and criticized the CB-CID for being “misdirected” in its pursuit of suspects from Puducherry.
Case 5: ECR Land Grabbing Allegations
In August 2024, the High Court once again chastised the Tamil Nadu police, this time over allegations of their involvement in a land-grabbing case along East Coast Road (ECR). The court transferred the matter to the CBI for an impartial probe.
Justice G. Jayachandran noted the growing perception that police investigators in the state are unable or unwilling to carry out fair and effective inquiries. He warned that this erosion of public trust could drive ordinary citizens to seek protection not from the police, but from criminal elements and political intermediaries.
The case involved a complaint by T. Karthik, who alleged that his property had been unlawfully seized by a group backed by local police officers. According to his counsel, the attackers demolished structures on the land and took illegal possession, all with the support of police officials.
Justice G. Jayachandran wrote, “It is indeed painful to note that the investigation agencies in this State have repeatedly exposed their inability to investigate cases dispassionately, effectively and truly. If this sordid state of affair continues, the poor and innocent public will have no protection from the police and as a sequel, they will lose their faith in the police…They may take shelter under powerful politicians and rowdy elements.”
In scathing remarks, the court said it could not remain a silent spectator to the growing nexus between rowdy elements and law enforcement, especially in cases involving land crimes and violence.
These repeated judicial interventions paint a worrying picture of law enforcement in Tamil Nadu. Once a symbol of efficiency and integrity, the state’s police force is now under intense scrutiny from the judiciary for procedural lapses, abuse of power, and alleged political bias. The courts have made it clear, if the system does not correct itself, public trust and justice may be the ultimate casualties.
(With inputs from Dinamalar)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
