DMK Moves Madras HC: Show Proof of Cover-Up Claim in Veeramani Case

The Madras High Court adjourned the DMK’s plea seeking SIT action on allegations that the party covered up the Veeramani case.

What Happened

On Wednesday, 30 September 2026, the DMK told the Madras High Court that Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar should furnish evidence for their allegations that the DMK had attempted to cover up the case involving R. Veeramani.

The plea, moved through DMK Treasurer and MP T.R. Baalu, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the case to consider and act on Baalu’s 27 September representation within a time frame fixed by the Court. The representation seeks inquiry into the basis of the statements made by Vijay and the two ministers, including whether they possessed information or material relating to the investigation that was not legitimately available to them.

The DMK has also sought preservation and examination of any documents, electronic material or other evidence that the three leaders may possess. Senior Advocate J. Ravindran, appearing for the DMK, submitted that if the leaders had evidence of a cover-up, it should be handed over to the police or the SIT.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan, however, observed that the recently constituted SIT should be allowed to conduct its investigation without interference. The matter was accordingly adjourned by four weeks. No direction was issued requiring Vijay, Aadhav Arjuna or C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar to appear before the SIT at this stage.

Background & Context

R. Veeramani, founder of GEM Granites, is an accused in an ongoing case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was arrested on 28 August 2026, and a Special Investigation Team was constituted to investigate the matter. The present article does not reproduce details concerning the alleged offence or any material that could identify a minor.

The political dispute arose after public statements by Vijay and Aadhav Arjuna at a Madurantakam bypoll rally on 25 September, in which they alleged that the previous DMK government had protected or buried the case. C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar subsequently made a separate allegation concerning the DMK’s alleged role. The DMK disputes these allegations. The allegations remain claims by the respective political actors and have not been treated here as established facts.

Baalu’s representation asked the SIT to examine the source of information behind those statements and to secure relevant material if the leaders possessed evidence connected to the investigation. The DMK subsequently approached the High Court seeking directions concerning that representation.

The Madras High Court has also been dealing with separate proceedings concerning the publication and circulation of material connected with the case, including restrictions concerning case-related videos.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Madras High Court, before Justice V. Lakshminarayanan.
• Date: 30 September 2026.
• Sections/Acts Invoked: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; writ of mandamus.
• Parties: DMK, through T.R. Baalu, seeking directions concerning the SIT investigating the Veeramani case.
• Current Status: The matter was adjourned by four weeks. No direction was issued at this stage requiring Vijay or the two ministers to appear before the SIT.

Why It Matters

The proceeding illustrates one way in which a writ of mandamus can be used to seek judicial directions concerning the functioning of a public authority. Here, the DMK is asking the High Court to direct the SIT to consider and act upon a representation concerning statements made by political leaders and the material allegedly supporting those statements.

The Court did not, at this stage, direct the SIT to summon Vijay or the two ministers. Instead, Justice Lakshminarayanan indicated that the newly constituted investigation team should be allowed to conduct its investigation without interference. The four-week adjournment therefore leaves the underlying investigation with the SIT while the Court’s consideration of the DMK’s plea remains pending.

The distinction is important because neither the allegation that the DMK covered up the case nor the DMK’s denial of that allegation has been established by the order described here. The immediate issue before the Court was whether directions should be issued concerning the SIT’s consideration of Baalu’s representation.

The case also demonstrates the difficulty of separating an ongoing criminal investigation from competing political claims about that investigation. For now, the Court has chosen not to issue the requested direction requiring the named political figures to appear before the SIT, while allowing the investigation to proceed.

Closing

The Madras High Court has adjourned the DMK’s plea by four weeks after declining, at this stage, to direct the SIT to summon Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay and ministers Aadhav Arjuna and C.T.R. Nirmal Kumar. The underlying allegations remain contested, while the SIT’s investigation continues.