Madras High Court names Sessions Judge as Enquiry Officer in Ajithkumar’s custodial death case. CB-CID to submit status report after independent probe.
Madurai: On July 1, Madurai/Chennai, Taking serious note of the alleged custodial torture and suspected destruction of evidence in the death of 29-year-old Ajithkumar, the Madras High Court has ordered a judicial inquiry into the role of police officials involved in the case.
The incident has stirred public outrage and raised significant questions about police accountability in Tamil Nadu.
Ajithkumar, a temporary security guard at a temple in Thirupuvanam, was taken into custody on suspicion of theft, based on a complaint filed by temple visitors.
While in custody, he was allegedly beaten with deadly weapons, and chilli powder was reportedly thrown on his face and private parts. He was eventually taken to a government hospital on June 28, where he was declared dead on arrival.
Tiphagne said,
“It was submitted in the court that the ‘special team’ picked up Ajithkumar without filing an FIR and thrashed him on different occasions and different places under the guise of an enquiry,”
The High Court appointed Judge John Sunderlal Suresh to conduct a judicial inquiry.
“All files, evidence should be handed over to him within 2-3 days. He will submit a report on July 8,”
said Tiphagne. The CB-CID was also allowed to investigate.
He confirmed,
“The agency will also submit a status report later,”
Following public outrage and a damning post-mortem report, CM M.K. Stalin ordered a CBI probe. He assured the family of justice, stating,
“There should be no doubts about the investigation. I’ve always reiterated that the police must act in a way that upholds human rights… The act by a few personnel is unpardonable. I’d like to warn—acts like this should never happen.”
Five officers have been arrested. The High Court observed,
“Ajith has died after a severe attack all over his body. This court feels even a murderer will not attack like this,” and noted that “some evidence has been destroyed. The investigating officer doesn’t appear to have collected all evidence.”
During the hearing of a group of petitions related to custodial deaths, a Division Bench of Justices SM Subramanian and AD Maria Clete directed a judicial officer to take charge of the inquiry.
The court appointed Additional District Judge S John Sundarlal Suresh to conduct the investigation and file a detailed report by July 8.
The court also issued strong directions to the State government to act against all police officers involved.
“As per the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General, the State Government shall initiate all appropriate actions against the higher officials, who are all responsible and accountable for the custodial death of the deceased Ajith Kumar and submit a status report before this Court on or before 08.07.2025…”
Ajithkumar’s mother had filed a complaint at the Thirupuvanam Police Station on June 29, as no FIR had been registered until that point.
It was later revealed that not only was there no FIR registered against him for the alleged theft, but he was not legally an accused on the day of his detention either.
According to the petitioners, a compromise meeting was held after Ajithkumar’s death involving senior police officers and local leaders from the ruling DMK party.
They informed the court that a compensation package of Rs 50 lakh and a government job for Ajithkumar’s brother were discussed during this meeting.
The petitioners also alleged that the theft complaint had political overtones. They submitted that the complainant, one Dr Nikitha, used her personal connection with an IAS officer to influence the police and ensure that strict action was taken against Ajithkumar.
The police, however, have denied any misuse of political or bureaucratic pressure.
In light of serious fears about witness safety and possible tampering with CCTV footage and other evidence, the petitioners requested that all digital and physical materials be preserved and that witnesses be given protection.
They also raised concerns that the State’s response was superficial. According to them, the action taken by the authorities was just a cover-up and
“they want to hide the custodial death under the carpet.”
ALSO READ: “Was He a Terrorist?” Madras High Court Slams Tamil Nadu Police Over Custodial Death
Responding to these concerns, the Additional Advocate General informed the court that an FIR had now been registered, and five police constables from the special team had been arrested under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The State also assured that disciplinary and legal action would be extended to senior officials involved in the incident.
The court, meanwhile, expressed deep concern over the violence inflicted on the victim and the attempt to cover up the truth. It observed:
“A plain reading of the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased would reveal that he was brutally attacked all over the body and died. Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much of injuries to a person is the view of this Court. He is not even an accused as on 27.06.2025 and no First Information Report for theft was registered.”
The judges also pointed out that the local police cannot be trusted with handling key evidence due to their direct involvement in the case.
The Court stated,
“The material evidence is unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are all directly or indirectly interested parties to the custodial death,”
One of the key issues discussed was the status of CCTV footage. The Court asked whether the CCTV recordings had been preserved properly, whether clean copies were made in the presence of a magistrate or independent official, and whether the chain of custody was being followed.
The Court warned:
“The present custody and status of the CCTV footages, including whether a clean copy was made in the presence of an independent official or Magistrate and what chain of custody protocols have been maintained. Whether any forensic certification of footage was undertaken and whether any tampering is ruled out is also a question to be investigated. The respondents however are bound to ensure that original CCTV footages and any mirror copies made thereof are preserved intact and not subjected to any deletion, overwriting or editing.”
To ensure a fair process and protect key witnesses, the court also ordered the State to provide proper security to all eyewitnesses involved in the case. The matter is now posted for the next hearing on July 11.
Also Read: Drug-Planting 1996 || Ex-IPS Officer Sanjiv Bhatt Convicted in 28-Year-Old Case
The petitioners were represented by senior human rights lawyers including Henri Patrick Tiphagne, RM Arun Swaminathan, E Mareeskumar, P Ramasamy, and R Alagumani.
The State government was represented by advocates P Thilak Kumar, M Ajmal Khan, T Senthil Kumar, and P Subbaraj.
Case Title:
Karthickraja & Ors v State & Ors
Read Order:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Custodial Death
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
