Madras Supreme Court transmits cases against CB-Cid journalists

GK Ilanthiraiyan It was noted that although it was regulated by the law that the accused could not elect the investigation agency to investigate the case against him, in exceptional circumstances, the court could exercise its extraordinary power when the situation requires confidence and confidence in the investigation.

“This is a regulated law that the accused cannot seek the transmission of the investigation because he has no word in the investigation conducted by the investigative agency. The accused cannot choose an investigation agency to investigate the cases registered against the accused. However, in exceptional cases, constitutional courts may exercise extraordinary power, where it becomes necessary to ensure confidence and trust in the investigation or where the incident may have national or international consequences»The court noted.

The court listened to Kryshnakumar @ Varaki, who appealed to the court to pass the investigation against him to the Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigation agency. Varaki informed the court that he was an activist, journalist and fighter who participated in the exposing of corruption and misdemeanor in state offices.

He stated that during his investigative journalism, he gathered information on corruption and misdemeanors related to the Commissioner of the Police, the Cennai Corporation and some registration authorities. He also reported that he had posted a video and posted it on his YouTube channel, after which the officer developed a personal Vendett against him, and began the wrong cases against him, conspiracy with other officers.

Varaaki claimed that all complaints were fabricated and organized to harass him to close his mouth. He stated that he was entitled to a fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution, and a fair investigation was also needed to maintain public confidence.

The authorities urged to reject the request and claimed that Varaki could not choose the investigation according to his whims and fiction. It was argued that no one could interfere with the investigation of any crime.

Get acquainted with the records, the court expressed the opinion that the officers made erroneous cases to prevent Varaki. The court also noted that there would be no fair investigation if the assistant of the Commissioner is allowed to continue the investigation. The Court also added that the principles of justice and impartiality would also be influenced if the investigation is allowed to continue officers.

“As noted, no complaints were filed for the current event, and all are imaginary accusations. Therefore, there will be no fair investigation if the second respondent is allowed to investigate all traffic regulations against the applicant. The applicant’s right to fair investigation is guaranteed in accordance with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In addition, the malicious intentions of respondents 1 and 2 upset the indirect investigation process by violating the principles of justice and impartialitysaid the court.

Thus, the court ordered to transfer cases to CBCID. The court ordered an additional CEO of CBCID police to appoint an investigator not lower than the rank of deputy chief of police and to complete the investigation within 12 weeks. The court also instructed the Director General of the Police (Administration) to control the investigation and to provide the investigation fairly.

Applicant’s lawyer: Mr. P. Radzhumar Pandian

Respondent’s lawyer: Mr. KMD Mukhilan Government Lawyer (CRL.SIDE)

Title of case: Vr Krishnakumar v. Commander Police and others

Quote: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 63

Case No.: crl.opnos.31418, 31419, 31425, 31426 and 31429 2024