Madras High Court Slams Police Brutality in Sivaganga Custodial Death, Labels It “Police Organised Crime” and Demands Accountability
Madras High Court Slams Police Brutality in Sivaganga Custodial Death, Labels It “Police Organised Crime” and Demands Accountability
Introduction:
The Madras High Court bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete took up the writ petition titled E. Marees Kumar v. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu and Others [WP(MD) 17949 of 2025], which was filed in response to the alleged custodial death of Ajith Kumar, a 29-year-old temporary security guard at the Madapuram Bhadrakali Amman Temple, Thirupuvanam, Sivaganga District. The petition, filed by advocate E Marees Kumar and others representing the AIADMK legal wing, sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the incident, arguing that the death of Ajith Kumar was a result of brutal and excessive police violence amounting to a gross violation of human rights and constitutional safeguards. The tragic incident unfolded when Ajith Kumar, a daily-wage worker, was initially taken to Thiruppuvanam police station for questioning in connection with a theft complaint regarding 10 sovereigns of gold jewelry reportedly missing from a car he had parked as part of his temple duties. Although Ajith was released after initial questioning, he was detained later the same day by a six-member Special Team led by Head Constable Mr. Kannan. Eyewitness accounts described horrifying details of severe beatings inflicted upon Ajith, who collapsed due to the injuries and later succumbed despite being rushed to the hospital. The petitioners contended that the action was unlawful since Ajith Kumar was not even named as an accused in any FIR, and his detention and brutal torture were carried out under the guise of a so-called “preliminary enquiry” without any legal sanction or judicial oversight, turning the entire episode into what the petitioners described as “cold-blooded custodial murder.”Arguments of the Petitioners:
The counsel for the petitioners argued forcefully that the entire episode was not just a case of excessive force but a systemic failure that amounted to an organised criminal act by the police machinery, with a clear intention to torture and eliminate Ajith Kumar despite the absence of any formal charges or FIR. They contended that the State and its police officials had violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India, depriving Ajith Kumar of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty without due process of law. The petitioners highlighted that the police acted with complete impunity, emboldened by the misuse of power, and questioned why a special team was deployed in the first place when there was no FIR registered. They demanded immediate constitution of an independent SIT to investigate the custodial death, strict prosecution of the erring police officials including higher officers like the SP and DSP of Sivaganga who had supervisory responsibilities, and adequate compensation for the victim’s family to ensure justice and accountability. The petitioners also flagged the possibility of tampering with evidence by the police, especially crucial CCTV footage and call detail records (CDRs), and requested the court to ensure the safe custody of all evidence to guarantee a fair and impartial investigation. They submitted that only a probe independent of the local police could unearth the real truth behind Ajith’s death and ensure prosecution of all those responsible, irrespective of their rank.Arguments of the Respondents (State):
On behalf of the State, the Government Advocate submitted that the police acted based on complaints received from two women who reported that their jewelry went missing when Ajith Kumar parked their car near the temple. The respondents argued that the preliminary enquiry conducted by the police was in accordance with standard procedures to ascertain the involvement of the suspect and that there was no malafide intent to cause harm. They claimed that the subsequent detention of Ajith Kumar was necessitated due to inconsistencies in his statements, which prompted the Special Team to question him further. The State submitted that swift action was taken after the custodial death came to light, with five constables arrested immediately, and that the government was committed to ensuring justice. The respondents stated that a departmental enquiry was also initiated against the higher officials to ascertain lapses, if any, in supervision or procedure. They contended that since criminal proceedings had been commenced and investigation was ongoing, there was no need to transfer the case to an SIT, as the existing legal and investigative mechanisms were sufficient to deal with the matter. They assured the court that all evidence, including CCTV footages and CDR records, would be preserved, and any attempt to tamper with the same would be dealt with sternly. The State further highlighted the need for balancing the investigation to avoid demoralizing the police force at large, arguing that while action against the guilty was essential, it should not lead to a witch hunt against officers who were not directly involved.Court’s Observations and Judgement:
The Madras High Court made a scathing oral observation that the incident amounted to “police organised crime” where the State had effectively killed its own citizen, an act that was far more heinous than ordinary murder due to the complete helplessness of the victim in custody. The bench expressed deep anguish that Ajith Kumar was not even an accused in any registered FIR and was tortured merely under the pretext of preliminary enquiry, a practice the court declared unacceptable in any civilized society governed by rule of law. The judges observed that the injuries inflicted upon Ajith were so brutal and extensive that it shocked the conscience of the entire State, noting that even hardened murderers do not inflict such injuries, as they typically stop once life is extinguished. The court strongly criticised the police for abusing power and using unbridled force on an unarmed, poor man who was in a completely defenseless position while in custody. The bench pointedly questioned on whose orders the Special Team acted without registering an FIR, stating that it was implausible for an ordinary constable or team to organize such an operation without explicit or tacit approval from higher-ups. The court demanded accountability from senior officers, specifically asking what action had been initiated against the Superintendent of Police (SP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) of Sivaganga. The judges directed the IVth Additional District Judge (Madurai), S John Sundarlal Suresh, to conduct an independent judicial enquiry into the custodial death and submit a detailed report by 8th July 2025. The court further ordered the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer to immediately hand over all collected evidence, including CCTV footage and call records, to the enquiring judge, warning that any attempt to tamper with or destroy evidence would invite the strongest action. Recognizing the fears raised by the petitioners regarding the safety of eyewitnesses, the court instructed the State to provide comprehensive protection to all witnesses to safeguard the integrity of the investigation. Appreciating the arrest of the five constables involved, the bench nevertheless remarked that further action needed to be “more stringent” to send a clear message that custodial violence would not be tolerated, and that the State must demonstrate zero tolerance by ensuring that such incidents never recur. The court ordered the State to submit a status report on the steps taken against the higher officials by 8th July, while making it clear that accountability must extend beyond the constables on the ground to those who planned, directed, or tacitly approved the illegal acts. The court adjourned the matter to 8th July for further hearing, after receipt of both the enquiry report and the State’s status report.
J&K Govt says fully prepared to deal with any kind of exigency
Assuring the citizens that there is no cause for alarm, J&K Govt requested the general public to stay calm and not panic