New Delhi, June 19 (UNI) The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to transfer to a different bench the case involving abduction allegations against Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram.

A bench comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan also set aside the June 17 order of the High Court that directed action against the senior IPS officer.

The apex court further ordered the Tamil Nadu government to transfer the investigation in the case to the Crime Branch–Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID).

"We will request the Chief Justice to assign it to some other bench. Courts are running administration now," the Bench observed while passing its directions.

The directives came in response to a petition filed by Jayaram, who approached the top court after the Madras High Court directed police action against him during a hearing on an anticipatory bail plea filed by Puratchi Bharatham Party MLA Poovai M. Jagan Moorthy.

The case pertains to the alleged abduction of a teenage boy following an inter-caste marriage opposed by the girl’s family.

While hearing the matter, the High Court had ordered both the MLA and ADGP Jayaram to appear before it, noting that Moorthy was allegedly absconding.

Although the court refrained from ordering Moorthy’s arrest after his appearance, it ordered that action be taken against Jayaram, leading to his suspension and alleged 24-hour custody.

Expressing shock over the High Court’s directions, the Supreme Court on Wednesday had termed the suspension of Jayaram as “demoralising” and sought clarification from the state government on the basis for his suspension.

On Thursday, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu government, submitted that the State had decided to maintain Jayaram’s suspension for now and would take a call on its revocation after the investigation concludes.

However, the court questioned the basis for the suspension, stating, “Yesterday, State counsel said he was not arrested. If he was not arrested, then on what basis is he suspended?”

The court asked the state to explore the possibility of handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Later, Dave informed the Court that the state had agreed to transfer the case to the CB-CID, while requesting the High Court not to “trouble” the government over this decision.

The counsel for Jayaram submitted that his suspension stemmed solely from the High Court’s order, and that he was neither named in the FIR nor given any notice to join the investigation.

He argued that he was kept in custody for 24 hours without justification, and that the matter had since been settled, with the complainant (the boy’s mother) submitting an affidavit indicating her willingness to resolve the issue.

Despite these submissions, the Supreme Court stated that it would not interfere with the State's administrative decision to suspend Jayaram. It recorded the State’s statement that the suspension was in line with IPS disciplinary rules, which allow suspension when a criminal investigation is pending.

“Looking into the controversial circumstances in which the impugned order had been passed, we are of the view that the investigation of this case be handed over to CB-CID, the court directed.

That apart, we also request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras to assign the case to another bench. With this, the direction of the High Court to secure and take action against the petitioner is hereby set aside,” the Supreme Court ordered.

On Wednesday, the state had claimed before the top court that Jayaram was never arrested and had merely joined the investigation. However, Jayaram’s counsel insisted that he was in fact taken into custody and released after 24 hours.

The case stems from the alleged abduction of a teenage boy, following his brother’s inter-caste marriage to a woman from Theni district. The woman’s family opposed the union, leading to a chain of events involving MLA Moorthy and ADGP Jayaram.

According to the Tamil Nadu government, the girl’s father sought help from Maheshwari, a dismissed woman constable, to annul the marriage.

Maheshwari allegedly approached ADGP Jayaram, who then involved MLA Moorthy. When police attempted to arrest Moorthy on June 15, approximately 2,000 party supporters obstructed the move, allowing the MLA to flee.

It was further alleged that the abducted boy was later dropped off near a bus stand in the ADGP’s official vehicle, driven by a constable to avoid detection.

The prosecution claimed the recovery of Rs 7.5 lakh in cash and confessional statements from two arrested accused, an advocate from Moorthy’s party and Maheshwari, implicating both the MLA and the ADGP.

The matter remains under investigation by the CB-CID, as per the Supreme Court’s direction.

UNI SNG PRS