On July 8, the Madras High Court Division Bench directed the Director of the CBI to appoint an investigating officer and an appropriate team within a week to probe the custodial death of temple guard Ajith Kumar in Sivaganga district.
The Madurai Bench, comprising Justices S.M. Subramaniam and A.D. Maria Clete, was hearing a batch of petitions with varying prayers. The Court instructed the CBI team to collect the report submitted by IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, Mr S. John Sundarlal Suresh, who had already conducted an inquiry, recording facts and evidence to prevent their destruction by local police. The court noted that the inquiry report revealed it to be a clear case of custodial death and directed that a final report be filed before the jurisdictional court. The hearing was adjourned to July 22.
In an earlier hearing, the bench had likened the custodial murder of temple guard Ajith Kumar to an “organised crime by the police where the state kills its own citizens”, and issued a set of directions to the state government on July 1. Following outrage from the opposition and public, as a face-saving measure, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin transferred the probe to the CBI to avoid further damage to his government.
In their 25-page order dated July 1, the judges issued the following directions to the state government:
i. “This Court requests Mr S. John Sundarlal Suresh, learned IV Additional District Judge, Madurai, to conduct a thorough enquiry into the custodial death of Ajith Kumar by commencing the enquiry forthwith and submit a report before this Court on 08.07.2025.
ii. “As per the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General, the State Government shall initiate all appropriate actions against the higher officials responsible and accountable for the custodial death of Ajith Kumar and submit a status report before this Court on or before 08.07.2025.
iii. “The Inspector of Police, Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer are directed to hand over the case file, CDR records of the higher officials and the Special Team members – including the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police, de facto complainant, and CCTV footage – to the learned IV Additional District Judge by 02.07.2025. The judge shall retain all evidence in safe custody at the Madurai District Court Campus until further orders.
iv. “The State shall provide necessary protection to the eyewitnesses in the case.”
The court observed, “The material evidence is unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are directly or indirectly interested parties in the custodial death… The current custody and status of the CCTV footage, including whether a clean copy was made in the presence of an independent official or Magistrate and what chain of custody protocols were maintained, must be investigated. Whether any forensic certification of the footage was undertaken and whether tampering has been ruled out are also questions that need to be addressed. The respondents are bound to ensure that original CCTV footage and any mirror copies made thereof are preserved intact, without any deletion, overwriting, or editing.”
The bench added, “A plain reading of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased reveals he was brutally attacked all over his body and died as a result. Even a common murderer may not have inflicted such injuries. The deceased was not even an accused as of 27.06.2025, and no First Information Report for theft had been registered. Importantly, he had no previous criminal record, no bad antecedents, and was working as a watchman in the local temple – well-known in the locality.”
The judges further said, “It has been brought to the Court’s notice that some evidence has already been destroyed and the scene of the incident was not properly preserved. One Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sukumaran, reportedly collected evidence himself in gunny bags in an unusual manner, necessitating serious scrutiny.”
The Court also noted, “Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that three prominent individuals/office bearers of the ruling DMK party, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, met at the Nadar Uravinmurai Kalyana Mandapam, Madappuram, for compromise talks. During this meeting, an offer of Rs 50,00,000 compensation and a government job for the deceased’s brother was made to the bereaved family.”
The judges stressed, “Custodial death is a violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights. Despite international conventions and the Supreme Court’s procedural guidelines in a catena of judgments, such deaths continue to be reported – a matter of grave public concern.” The hearing was adjourned to July 8.
Tamil Nadu: Custodial death of temple security guard Ajith Kumar under DMK regime sparks outrage
By: TS Venkatesan#TamilNadu #DMKhttps://t.co/kKQ8TxcfX6
— Organiser Weekly (@eOrganiser) July 1, 2025
Meanwhile, on 1 July, Chief Minister Stalin transferred the investigation to the CBI following criticism from both the High Court and opposition parties. He met the victim’s family and sent ministers to offer financial support and a government job.
Stalin stated, “I have assured them that a fair, transparent, and unbiased probe will be conducted and that strict action will be taken against those responsible, ensuring justice for Ajith Kumar’s grieving family.” Within a day of transferring the probe to CB-CID, the government further handed it over to the CBI, as demanded by opposition parties and petitioners in the High Court.
AIADMK General Secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami, in a statement, said, “Your government murdered him. Is a simple apology your response after that…?”
Trichy East MLA Inigo Irudayaraj commented, “Are there different yardsticks? If suspects can get injured slipping in toilets, can’t the same happen to policemen who beat Ajith Kumar to death? Won’t it be justified to encounter them, claiming they tried to escape or attack? Why this soft approach towards the police? They must be given the maximum punishment without delay.” He later deleted the tweet.
