Veeramani and his two aides were arrested by the Anti-Vice Squad on August 28, over alleged rape of minor girls. The police had stated that the case was registered upon receiving a USB drive by the Intelligence and Technology Police Unit (ITPU) containing video clips which allegedly showed Veeramani sexually assaulting juvenile girls. The police also stated that the investigation revealed that Veeramani had rented a house in Chennai's Teynampet where he lured the victims and sexually assaulted them. The two caretakers of the house, Mahendra Simhan and his wife Shanti, were also arrested along with Veeramani, and the three were lodged in Puzhal prison.

The case was registered for offences under Sections 7,8,15(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act, Sections 354(A), 354(C), 201, and 120(B) of IPC and Sections 66(E), and 67(B) of the IT Act.

On September 25, it was informed that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had been set up to probe the case. The SIT comprises Additional Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch PC Thenmozhi IPS, Joint Commissioner of Police, L&O Disha Mittal IPS, Superintendent of Police/Media Relations Officer in the office of DGP J Mutharasi IPS, and Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Against Women and Children VV Geethanjali IPS.

Tamil Nadu Law Minister CTR Nirmal Kumar informed that the SIT would work under the supervision of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, and has directed the Commissioner to provide the requisite manpower and logistics.

Meanwhile, on 25^th September, the High Court had also asked media houses not to publish videos in connection with the case, remarking that if debates and photographs were to be uploaded, it would deter other victims from coming forward and giving evidence.

Balu submitted that after the formation of the SIT, the CM and the other two ministers had made assertive statements about DMK party's involvement in the case and had claimed that there was material evidence for the same.

Balu submitted that after creation of SIT, it was the duty of every individual, which have knowledge about the subject, to appear before the SIT and produce all material evidences to enable them to effectively investigate the issue. Balu submitted that the Commissioner of Police also issued a public announcement requesting all individuals with information about the case to furnish it.

Balu pointed out that the statements made by the CM and the Ministers on having evidence and not submitting the same to the SIT would amount to concealment of material evidence, which was a criminal offence. It was submitted that the individuals owed a responsibility and duty to appear before the SIT and reveal all the evidence.

It was submitted that when such statements were made in public and the individuals had not appeared before the SIT, the SIT had a duty to summon the individuals and collect all material evidence.

Balu submitted that the petition was not based on political disagreement but on the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation. He submitted that if the individuals were in possession of any material in connection with the case, its source had to be enquired into and it had to be seen how they had access to investigation-related material which was not legitimately made available to them.

Balu also submitted that he had also sent a representation to the Additional Commissioner of Police, Head, Special Investigation Team, CBCID, requesting the investigating agency to summon the individuals and secure all materials, documents, records and information in their possession in connection with the case.

Thus, he had approached the court seeking direction to the SIT to summon the individuals, collect materials in their possession, and ensure effective investigation.