Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Maria Clete sharply questioned the legality of Ajith’s detention, his alleged torture, and the role of senior officers, calling it an “illegal custodial death” and rights violation
Published Jul 01, 2025 | 4:57 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 01, 2025 | 4:57 PM
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court on Monday made scathing observations in the alleged custodial death of 25-year-old Ajith Kumar, questioning the legality of his detention and the conduct of senior police officers. Terming it an “illegal custodial death” and a “violation of fundamental rights,” the court summoned top officials and demanded immediate submission of inquiry and autopsy reports
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, on Monday, issued a series of blistering observations and summoned top officials in connection with the alleged custodial torture and death of 25-year-old Ajith Kumar, who was picked up by police in relation to a missing jewellery and cash complaint at the Madappuram Badrakaliamman temple in Thiruppuvanam.
The hearing, led by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Maria Clete, took a critical turn as the court questioned the very legality of the detention, the violent treatment of the victim, and the role of senior police officers in what it termed an “illegal custodial death” and “a violation of fundamental rights.”
Appearing for the petitioner, senior human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne submitted photographic and video evidence allegedly showing Ajith Kumar being brutally assaulted by police using plastic pipes and iron rods.
The video, reportedly recorded by a temple employee and eyewitness named Sakthiswaran, clearly captured Ajith being beaten inside the Thiruppuvanam police station premises.
Tiphagne also revealed that the Superintendent of Police (SP) of Sivaganga district was present at the station during the time of the assault. Crucially, it was the SP who later informed Ajith’s mother of his death, raising serious concerns about the role of top-level officers in the events that led to the young man’s death.
The State Government Counsel admitted in court that Ajith was indeed beaten with a pipe, but maintained that the government would take “strict action” against the offenders. “We will never support the wrongdoers,” he said.
However, the judges remained visibly unconvinced, pressing the counsel on multiple legal and procedural lapses.
The court raised the following pointed questions during the hearing:
The court sharply asked, “If this was merely a theft investigation, why was the suspect beaten to death? The police are meant to investigate, not inflict violence.”
According to Senior Advocate Maris Kumar, the head constable in charge of the inquiry, Kannan, operated outside his jurisdiction. Kumar submitted that the Thiruppuvanam Inspector and the SP had dismissed Ajith’s statements as false and instructed the special team to “watch them carefully.”
He argued that both the Inspector and the SP must be included as accused in the case.
In a stunning revelation, the court also heard allegations that DMK functionaries—including Chengai Maran, Thiruppuvanam DMK secretary Mahendran, and Manamadurai DSP Kaleeswaran—offered Ajith’s family ₹50 lakh to settle the matter and not pursue legal action.
Further, during the magistrate’s inquiry, it was reported that police personnel surrounded the Judicial Magistrate at the scene, and Ajith’s mother and sister were not allowed to view his full body before the post-mortem.
The autopsy report has yet to be handed over to the family, which the court described as deeply troubling.
The judges minced no words in expressing their dismay at the incident. Among the key observations:
“We are not blaming the entire police department, but strict action must be taken against those who committed the offence.”
“The materials submitted by the petitioners disturb the conscience of the court.”
“This is an illegal custodial death and a violation of fundamental rights.”
“The police are meant to protect the public. Custodial deaths will be taken seriously by the court.”
The court issued the following directives, all to be complied with by 3 PM today (July 1):
The court emphasized that these steps were necessary to ensure transparency, accountability, and justice in a case that has raised disturbing questions about police conduct and institutional response.
(Edited by Ananya Rao with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
