Published Oct 27, 2026 | 12:01 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 27, 2026 | 12:01 PM
Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi.
The Madras High Court, late on Monday night, 26 October, has remanded former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in judicial custody until 6 November in connection with an alleged ₹100-crore scam involving the issuance of permissions and approvals to private schools.
The court also permitted the police to take him into custody. During the proceedings, the judge asked Anbil Mahesh to state his name. When asked whether the police had harassed him, he replied in the negative.
After hearing both sides, the court passed the order remanding him to judicial custody. Anbil Mahesh’s counsel informed the court that a bail petition had already been filed.
The defence also requested that Anbil Mahesh be accorded first-class facilities in prison and provided with a diet free of protein and fat, citing his medical condition.
Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, who was arrested on Monday, was taken from the Chennai Police Commissioner’s Office to Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital for a medical examination after three hours of questioning. He spoke to reporters at the hospital.
Speaking to the reporters, Anbil Mahesh said, “We accepted their summons and fully cooperated with the police. We cooperated with the police for seven to eight hours on September 18.”
“When we approached the court seeking anticipatory bail, everything presented by the government was nothing but stories. They certainly cannot prove any of it. They arrested me with the intention of doing so immediately after the anticipatory bail was cancelled. We will fight this legally,” he added.
Also Read: Former Tamil Nadu minister Anbil Mahesh arrested in private school approvals case
Meanwhile, DMK lawyers protested Anbil Mahesh’s arrest inside Madras High Court. They questioned the government counsel over the arrest of Anbil Mahesh at the office of a senior advocate. They raised objections to the manner in which the arrest was carried out, calling it illegal and unjustified.
The lawyers also questioned the investigating officer’s actions, asking whether the officer had no respect for the legal fraternity. Heated arguments broke out inside the courtroom, with some lawyers warning, “The government will change. You will have to answer for this.”
DMK leader and former minister P.K. Sekar Babu was also present outside the courtroom. Chief Criminal Advocate R. John Sathyan joined the DMK lawyers in objecting to the arrest at the senior advocate’s office.
DMK advocate Saravanan raised objections before the judge, arguing that arresting Anbil Mahesh at a senior advocate’s office was improper. He said such an incident had never happened before and alleged that the police had exceeded their jurisdiction. He also pointed out that the address of the advocate’s office had been mentioned as the place of arrest.
Senior advocate P. Wilson, appearing for Anbil Mahesh, argued that the arrest at a lawyer’s office was wrong. He said Anbil Mahesh was not a terrorist and had cooperated with the investigation. Questioning the manner in which the police acted, Wilson asked whether the state was being run by the police.
Describing the incident as a challenge to the legal fraternity, Wilson said lawyers could not remain silent and urged the court not to overlook what he termed an injustice. He also described the police entering his office as an act of high-handedness.
Chief Criminal Advocate R. John Sathyan, representing the police, said officers had waited for more than an hour before arresting Anbil Mahesh.
Reading out the High Court’s order rejecting Anbil Mahesh’s anticipatory bail petition earlier on Monday, the prosecution explained the background of the case. It alleged that online financial transactions had also taken place and claimed to have video evidence of money transfers. The prosecution said it suspected a scam involving ₹400 crore.
It argued that custodial interrogation was necessary, which was why the High Court had rejected the anticipatory bail plea. The prosecution also expressed apprehension that the accused could influence witnesses or destroy evidence, urging the court to consider the nature and seriousness of the case.
Senior advocate P. Wilson was presenting further arguments on behalf of Anbil Mahesh when the proceedings continued.
He argued before the Madras High Court that his client had cooperated with the investigation and could not be arrested after answering more than 200 questions during questioning.
He pointed out that the three other accused arrested in the case had already been granted bail.
Wilson argued that the arrest was based on the stated need to conduct a comprehensive investigation and prevent the accused from influencing witnesses. However, he contended that no fresh evidence had emerged to justify the arrest.
He further submitted that an arrest cannot be carried out mechanically, as such action would violate fundamental rights. He also argued that the rejection of an anticipatory bail petition does not, by itself, mean that the accused must be arrested.
Also Read: Madras High Court dismisses Anbil Mahesh’s anticipatory bail plea in private school approvals case
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Subash Chandra Bose)
