The highly unusual move, involving such a senior officer, is thought to be the first of its kind in the state. The Supreme Court, which is hearing Jayaraman’s plea against his suspension, has questioned the rationale behind both his arrest and suspension.
Published Jun 19, 2025 | 9:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jun 23, 2025 | 8:48 AM
Jayaram, a 1996-batch IPS officer, is accused of facilitating the abduction of a 17-year-old boy using an official police vehicle.
Synopsis: In an unprecedented move, Tamil Nadu ADGP HM Jayaram was arrested in uniform on the Madras High Court premises following a directive from Justice P Velmurugan, in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor. The arrest has sparked debate, with experts suggesting the court’s directive to “secure” Jayaram may have been misinterpreted. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court, currently hearing Jayaram’s plea against his suspension, has questioned the legal basis for both the arrest and the suspension of the senior officer.
In a dramatic turn of events, the now-suspended Tamil Nadu Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) HM Jayaram was arrested on Tuesday from the premises of the Madras High Court, reportedly while in uniform and following a directive by Justice P Velmurugan in connection with the alleged abduction of a minor.
The highly unusual move, involving such a senior officer, is thought to be the first of its kind in the state. Retired Superintendent of Police (Security Branch) M Karunanidhi confirmed the unprecedented nature of the arrest.
“This is indeed a first,” he said. “Never before has a senior officer been arrested in uniform inside a court complex.”
Karunanidhi also questioned the manner in which the court’s directive was interpreted by the police.
“A court can direct that an accused be properly interrogated, but cannot dictate how the interrogation or arrest should happen. If the court used the word ‘secure,’ it likely refers to ‘securing presence for inquiry,’ not an instruction to arrest.”
Senior journalist Priyan Srinivasan echoed this view, saying the judge had only directed that Jayaram be “secured,” not arrested.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court, which is hearing Jayaram’s plea against his suspension, has questioned the rationale behind both his arrest and suspension.
The bench observed that Jayaram had cooperated with the investigation and said the suspension ought to be reconsidered.
Jayaram, a 1996-batch IPS officer, is accused of facilitating the abduction of a 17-year-old boy using an official police vehicle, in the Thiruvalangadu area of Thiruvallur district.
The alleged abduction is linked to a family dispute stemming from a self-respecting marriage between 22-year-old Dhanush from Thiruvallur and 21-year-old Vijay Sri from Theni in April. The couple reportedly married without the consent of Vijay Sri’s family.
Both are believed to be from different castes – a factor police say may have triggered the backlash from her family.
Following the marriage, her father, Vanaraja, began looking for the couple with the help of associates. On 6 June, according to Thiruvallur police, a group from Theni abducted Dhanush’s younger brother – a minor – from the family’s home.
His mother, Lakshmi, filed a complaint at the Thiruvalangadu police station. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered, and departmental proceedings were initiated against Jayaram.
The case has since widened to include multiple figures, among them ‘Poovai’ M Jagan Moorthy, a sitting MLA from Kilvaithinakuppam (SC) constituency in Vellore and leader of the Puratchi Bharatham Party.
On 14 June, a police team went to the MLA’s residence to question him, but his supporters allegedly blocked access. During the standoff, the MLA left the premises.
The complaint names Vanaraja, his relatives Manikandan and Ganesan, party functionary and advocate Sarathkumar, and Maheswari, a dismissed police constable.
Police say both Maheswari and Sarathkumar have confessed to involvement. Maheswari was serving in Namakkal at the same time Jayaram was Superintendent of Police there.
According to the police, the boy was picked up by associates of the MLA in two vehicles. Dhanush wasn’t home at the time, so the group allegedly took his brother, who had been asleep on the terrace, and later dropped him off at a bus stand in an official police vehicle.
Vanaraja and Maheswari were reportedly in that vehicle.
The arrest followed a hearing on Monday by the High Court of Jagan Moorthy plea for anticipatory bail, claiming no involvement in the incident.
But Justice P Velmurugan did not entertain the plea and issued a stern warning:
“As an elected representative, you are accountable to the people who voted for you,” the judge said.
“I am not afraid of how many are – justice will prevail. You must cooperate with the investigation. Until then, no relief will be granted.”
And in a rare move, the judge issued a directive for the ADGP Jayaram to be “secured immediately.”
Karunanidhi invoked the principle of natural justice and pointed to recent changes in the criminal law framework.
“A mere complaint is not sufficient grounds for arrest. The new criminal law reforms clearly state that arrest is not mandatory for offences punishable with less than seven years’ imprisonment,” he said.
“If the investigating officer believes the accused is a law-abiding citizen who won’t abscond or tamper with evidence, then arrest isn’t necessary. It’s up to the discretion of the officer.”
When asked whether the judge had overreached, Karunanidhi offered a cautious interpretation:
“Perhaps the judge wanted to send a strong message – that senior officials are not above the law. I don’t believe there’s a vendetta against Jayaram. From my experience working with him, he is a good man with a strong sense of leadership and integrity.”
Karunanidhi, who served as vice principal at the Chennai Police Academy during Jayaram’s tenure as principal, described him as a competent and compassionate officer known for helping others.
Journalist Priyan noted that police had submitted crucial and strong evidence to the court, which is why the judge brought Jayaram under the ambit of investigation. But he added a note of caution.
However, he cautioned that, like many other cases involving police personnel in Tamil Nadu that remain unresolved, this case too should not meet the same fate. “We’ll have to wait and watch,” he said.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
