Published Sep 24, 2026 | 9:46 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 24, 2026 | 10:00 PM
Veeramani, along with two associates, Shanthi and her husband Mahendra Simhan, was arrested in August.
Synopsis: A child rights activist has urged the Madras High Court to monitor the Gem Veeramani POCSO case amid the circulation of photographs and sensitive details linked to minor victims. The case has also raised questions over police accountability, media ethics and the enforcement of legal safeguards protecting the identity of POCSO victims.
The POCSO case against 84-year-old granite businessman R. Veeramani, popularly known as ‘Gem Veeramani’, has been marked by multiple allegations of investigative lapses.
But the latest controversy extends beyond the investigation itself. Recent developments in the case have raised questions about how sensitive information from POCSO investigations repeatedly enters the public domain despite statutory safeguards intended to protect the identity and dignity of child victims.
On Thursday, 24 September, photographs purportedly of Veeramani with minor girls were circulated widely on social media. Several local and national media organisations published them.
The Greater Chennai Police subsequently warned that publishing or sharing material that could identify a minor in a POCSO case is an offence. They urged anyone possessing evidence to hand it over to the police instead of putting it in the public domain.
The case was registered in October 2025, after a child welfare volunteer approached an inspector of the Anti-Vice Squad and handed over a pen drive. The volunteer said an unidentified person delivered the storage device to his office.
The unidentified person reportedly stated that the pen drive contained a video showing prominent industrialist Veeramani allegedly committing a sexual offence against a minor girl in the bedroom of the house of his associate, Shanthi. On examining the video, the police found footage of an adult man allegedly committing a sexual offence against a minor girl.
The Anti-Vice Squad of the Central Crime Branch, Greater Chennai Police, subsequently registered a case on 7 October 2025.
The initial investigation did not lead to Veeramani’s arrest. In February 2026, police submitted a report seeking to drop further action, citing “lack of evidence” and difficulties in establishing the identity and whereabouts of the minor girl involved.
The special POCSO court rejected the closure report in August and ordered a fresh investigation. Following this, the CCB arrested Veeramani, Shanthi, and her husband, Mahendra Simhan, on 29 August.
The renewed investigation reportedly uncovered additional digital evidence and statements from other alleged survivors. Police subsequently arrested Ganesan, a former Veeramani employee, allegedly for possessing a video involving a minor and failing to inform the authorities.
The CCB has also summoned Assistant Commissioner Yasmin and Inspectors Mahesh Kumar and Rajalakshmi, who handled the original investigation, to question them about how the complaint was handled and the recommendation to close the case.
Yasmin was subsequently transferred to the Chief Office Vacancy Reserve on “administrative grounds”.
Also Read: ADGP Arun, Coimbatore Police Commissioner Kannan transferred, placed in vacancy reserve
Since the renewed investigation began, details about arrests, questioning, evidence, and the alleged number of victims have appeared regularly in news reports and on social media.
Sources told South First that the media obtained several such details from police sources. The issue intensified on Thursday, after local and national media outlets published the photographs of Veeramani with minors. The pictures were subsequently circulated widely on social media.
The Greater Chennai Police then warned media organisations and social media users. It cautioned that sharing or publishing such material could attract action under Section 23(2) of the POCSO Act. It urged anyone possessing evidence to submit it to the police instead of sharing it publicly.
Section 23(2) of the POCSO Act says:
“No report in any media shall disclose the identity of a child, including his name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or any other particulars which may lead to disclosure of the identity of the child:
Provided that, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court competent to try the case under the Act may permit such disclosure if, in its opinion, such disclosure is in the interest of the child.”
For child welfare activists, this is not an isolated incident.
They point to two earlier cases: the Anna Nagar POCSO case and the Anna University sexual-assault case in 2024, where information about the survivors entered the public domain and subsequently became the subject of court scrutiny.
In August 2024, a 10-year-old girl was allegedly sexually assaulted in Chennai’s Anna Nagar.
During the investigation, then Anna Nagar All Women Police Station Inspector S Raji recorded the minor’s statement. An audio recording of the interaction surfaced on social media and circulated widely.
The Greater Chennai Police ordered an internal inquiry, while the case also triggered public outrage over the manner in which the police handled the child and her parents.
The Madras High Court took suo motu cognisance. After expressing concerns over the State Police investigation, the court initially transferred the case to the CBI. The Supreme Court later constituted a Special Investigation Team.
Inspector Raji was subsequently arrested along with AIADMK functionary Sudhakar over allegations relating to the handling of the case and the treatment of the victim’s parents. Raji was suspended and made an accused in the case.
The High Court also criticised the disclosure of the child’s identity, treating it as a breach of the statutory protection available to a POCSO victim.
Related: Chennai court defers bail pleas of co-accused Shanthi and Mahendra Simhan
The Anna University sexual assault case dates back to 23 December 2024, when a 19-year-old student was allegedly sexually assaulted on the university campus.
The controversy soon extended beyond the alleged assault after the FIR, which contained identifying details of the survivor, became publicly accessible through the police’s online system.
The disclosure triggered widespread public and political reactions.
The Madras High Court constituted an all-women SIT, ordered ₹25 lakh interim compensation for the survivor and directed that identifying information be removed from online platforms. It also ordered an inquiry into how the FIR became accessible.
Police and the National Informatics Centre subsequently attributed the FIR’s appearance on the police website to a technical issue related to the migration from the IPC to the BNS system.
The investigation into the FIR leak also became controversial after the SIT questioned journalists who had accessed the FIR and seized some of their devices.
The High Court questioned how the journalists were investigated and why police personnel responsible for registering and uploading the FIR had not been examined first.
The case also became a major political flashpoint. The AIADMK launched its “Who is that Sir?” campaign, while the DMK government accused the opposition of politicising the incident.
The High Court expressed concern over the politicisation of the case and what it described as a “media trial”, stressing that the focus should remain on the investigation and the safety of women.
Related: Industrialist R. Veeramani, two associates arrested for alleged sexual assault of minor girls
POCSO Act — Section 23
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act restricts media reports from disclosing a child’s identity, including the child’s name, address, photograph, family details, school, neighbourhood or other particulars that could lead to identification.
A violation can attract punishment under Section 23(4). The Special Court may permit disclosure only when it records reasons and considers it in the child’s interest.
In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that protection of a sexual-offence victim’s identity extends beyond the person’s name to information that can directly or indirectly reveal their identity.
The court also directed that FIRs relating to POCSO offences should not be placed in the public domain.
Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act restricts the publication or disclosure of information that could identify a child in conflict with law, a child in need of care and protection, or a child victim or witness of a crime.
The provision also restricts publication of the child’s picture in proceedings covered by the section.
Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects children against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, honour and reputation.
Article 34 requires States to protect children from sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. (India has ratified the Convention).
Also Read: Cauvery water row: SC seeks Karnataka’s response to Tamil Nadu’s shortfall plea
Child welfare activist Devanyean Arasu said the issue should first be viewed through the lens of the child’s best interests and dignity.
“First of all, this is about the best interest of the child. The Juvenile Justice Act and POCSO Act both speak about the best interests of children. There should be no compromise when it comes to the child’s best interest.
“The dignity of the child is very, very important. You should not reveal the child’s school, area, identity or any information that can lead to them. This is not only about that particular child. It can also affect other children in the same school or community.
Arasu said disclosing such sensitive information amounted to exploitation.
“When you disclose such information, it is pure exploitation. Just as we call child sexual abuse exploitation, disclosing the identity of a child in such a manner is also exploitation. This is a violation of POCSO and the Juvenile Justice Act,” he said.
He also highlighted the role of police in protecting the information regarding the identity of the child.
“This is not something we can simply move past. The first accountability is with the police. Who gave the information? How was it given? Why was it given? These questions have to be answered,” he said.
“Children are a highly vulnerable community. So when you expose them further, we have to ask whether that is media ethics and what standards are being followed,” he added.
“One media outlet cannot justify publishing something by saying another media outlet published it first. That does not reduce the violation,” he said.
Arasu also questioned the manner in which political parties treated sexual assault cases involving children.
He said the question should not only be about which political party is responsible for a particular incident, but also about whether governments are adequately funding and strengthening child-protection institutions.
“Children are a highly vulnerable community. They don’t have political power or a vote bank. If there is genuine concern, do politics for children, don’t do politics using children. There is a difference,” he said.
“If you are talking about children, talk about their protection mechanisms, the budget allocated for them, the functioning of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards and child-protection units. Why are we not discussing these institutions and how they function? Why are we not discussing whether children have adequate protection mechanisms?” he asked.
Arasu questioned whether cases involving children should be used as political tools, arguing that political attention should extend beyond individual cases to the functioning of the broader child-protection system.
Also Read: TMC(M) announces support for TVK in Madurantakam, Dharapuram bypolls
Arasu called for immediate action against the circulation of material that could identify child victims in POCSO cases.
He said police should issue clear directions to media organisations and social-media platforms and take action where necessary.
The activist also called for greater scrutiny by the High Court’s POCSO and Juvenile Justice committees.
Arasu also raised serious allegations regarding the Veeramani case. He alleged that the case could involve political and economic influence, as well as connections extending beyond India.
He called for a sitting High Court judge to monitor the proceedings and for a time-bound mechanism to ensure the investigation moves toward what he described as “real justice for children.”
(Edited by Fayisa CA).
