Criticising the investigation done by the State police into the matter, Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the State had acted in a biased manner and had conducted the investigation without properly examining the organisers, participants or the injured persons and had hurriedly filed the final report. Noting that the right to a fair investigation was part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court held that it was a fit case to transfer the investigation.

“The State is expected to defend the victims. It is the state alone that has been provided with the power of investigation. The purpose of investigation is to find out the truth. However in this case, it appears that the third respondent has acted in a biased manner and conducted investigation by not even examining the organisers, participants, media personnel and the injured person and has hurriedly filed a final report. The right to a fair investigation is also a fundamental right accrued on the victim under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This court is of the view that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner in the present case,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of NGO Arappor Iyakkam and Senior Advocate V Suresh seeking to transfer investigation from state police to CB-CID.

It was submitted that on November 2, 2025, the NGO had conducted a meeting in a marriage hall at Palayamkottai to address the grievance of residents and farmers affected due to illegal stone quarrying activities in Tirunelveli district. The meeting was being chaired by Suresh along with a panel of experts from various fields.

During the hearing, a group of lawyers, who claimed to be representatives of quarry operators, entered the meeting hall to create problems and to stop the meeting. They shouted at the participants. When Suresh attempted to pacify the lawyers, one of the lawyers threw a chair to his head which caused head injury. The petitioners submitted that though police were present at the place of occurrence, they remained mute spectators and did not take any steps to prevent the incident.

The petitioner submitted that though an e-complaint was lodged through the Online Complaints Portal, it was not acted upon and instead the police had registered a suo motu case. It was argued that the investigation was carried out in a defective manner and the FIR was registered in a vague manner, omitting all the material details. It was submitted that the statement of petitioners or other participants was not recorded and neither were video recordings and photos of the incident collected.

The State, on the other hand, submitted that the case was registered based on the complaint of a Head Constable, who was on bandobast duty nearby at the time of incident and had visited the meeting hall due to commotion. The State submitted that the final report had already been filed and there was no necessity for any investigation by the CBCID.

The State also argued that the petitioners had not cooperated with the police to record their statement and there was nothing to show that Suresh had undergone treatment. It was also submitted that the statement of participants was not recorded since the statement of officials was sufficient.

The court noted that when the entire scenario was captured on video cameras and photos, the police should have collected the same and ascertained as to who the aggressor was and what their intention was. On perusing the materials, the court also noted that the police had not recorded the statement of the petitioners, even though they were available at the spot.

Considering the materials, the court observed that the State had not conducted a fair investigation in the case. Thus, the court transferred the investigation to CBCID and directed the authority to ensure that the final report is filed within 3 months.

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Henri Patric Tiphange

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Jayaram Venkatesan and Another v The Inspector General of Police

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 274

Case No: Crl OP(MD)No.7419 of 2026