Ajith Kumar was detained on 28 June by Thiruppuvanam police over a missing jewellery case at Madappuram temple; his suspicious custodial death days later triggered widespread public outrage and condemnation
Published Jul 01, 2025 | 8:56 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 01, 2025 | 8:56 PM
Ajith Kumar custodial death: Case transferred to CBI following High Court scrutiny
Synopsis: Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has announced the transfer of the Thiruppuvanam custodial death case involving 25-year-old Ajith Kumar to the CBI. The move follows sharp questioning by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court regarding the legality of the investigation. Stalin assured Ajith’s family of a fair, impartial probe and pledged full cooperation with the central agency
In a significant development, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin announced that the custodial death case of 25-year-old Ajith Kumar in Thiruppuvanam has been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The announcement came shortly after the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court raised pointed questions about the legality of the investigation and asked whether the state had any objection to handing over the probe to the central agency.
The Chief Minister, addressing the media, said he had personally spoken to Ajith Kumar’s family and assured them that the state would ensure a fair and impartial investigation.
In a post on X, he wrote: “The cruelty inflicted on the youth of Thiruppuvanam is inexcusable and must never be repeated. The government will ensure strict punishment for those responsible—justice will be delivered, and this will be a small solace to the grieving family.”
“Justice will not only be promised, but delivered,” Stalin stated, adding that the Tamil Nadu Government would provide full cooperation to the CBI throughout the course of the probe.
திருப்புவனம் இளைஞர் காவல் நிலைய மரண வழக்கில் #CBCID தனது விசாரணையைத் தொடரலாம் என்று மாண்பமை சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்ற மதுரைக் கிளை தெரிவித்திருக்கிறது.
இருந்தாலும், இந்த வழக்கின் விசாரணை குறித்து, எந்தவிதமான ஐயப்பாடும் எழுப்பப்படக்கூடாது என்பதைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு, இந்த வழக்கை… pic.twitter.com/PN3WL1Kgfz
— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) July 1, 2025
Ajith Kumar was taken into custody by the Thiruppuvanam police in Sivaganga district on 28 June in connection with a missing jewellery and cash complaint registered at the Madappuram Badrakaliamman temple.
Days later, his death under suspicious circumstances while in police custody sparked widespread outrage.
The case gained further momentum when the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Maria Clete, heard a petition filed by human rights activists seeking accountability and justice.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior human rights advocate Henri Tiphagne presented damning photographic and video evidence allegedly showing Ajith Kumar being brutally assaulted with plastic pipes and iron rods inside the Thiruppuvanam police station.
The video, reportedly recorded by temple employee Sakthiswaran, clearly depicted the violence inflicted upon Ajith by uniformed personnel.
Tiphagne also made a startling revelation: the Superintendent of Police (SP) for Sivaganga district was present at the station during the assault and was the one who later informed Ajith’s mother of his death.
The SP’s direct involvement and presence raised serious questions of procedural violation and accountability.
The court also learned that the investigation had been led by Head Constable Kannan, part of a special crime team under the Manamadurai DSP, allegedly without proper jurisdiction or legal authorization.
While the police had claimed that Ajith attempted to escape custody, this version has been strongly disputed.
The State Government’s counsel admitted in court that Ajith had been beaten with a pipe and assured that “strict action” would be taken against the erring officials.
However, the bench appeared unconvinced, asking why no FIR had been filed in the original complaint, why Ajith was detained for two days without due process, and why the Superintendent of Police had not been suspended despite clear indications of misconduct.
(Edited by Ananya Rao)
