Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Madras High Court’s Actions Against Tamil Nadu ADGP in Alleged Abduction Case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed serious concern over the Madras High Court’s order directing action against Tamil Nadu ADGP HM Jayaram in an abduction case. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan criticised the subsequent suspension of the senior IPS officer, calling it “demoralising,” especially since he had already joined the investigation. The Court questioned the necessity of the suspension and directed the State to clarify its position, listing the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
6/27/20251 min read
Senior IPS officer ADGP H.M. Jayaram and MLA M. Jagan Moorthy were implicated in the alleged abduction of a teenager linked to a family dispute over an inter‑caste marriage. Madras HC, on June 16, ordered Jayaram’s custody (citing confessions by co‑accused) and suspended him, prompting Jayaram to appeal to the Supreme Court.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan sharply criticized both the High Court’s arrest direction and the Tamil Nadu government’s suspension of Jayaram.
The Supreme Court labelled these actions “shocking” and “demoralising,” especially as Jayaram had “voluntarily” joined the investigation and was not under formal arrest.
SC questioned the necessity and procedural soundness of suspending a senior officer without due justification.
Supreme Court agreed to hear Jayaram’s plea urgently (listed June18 challenging the Madras HC directive.
SC directed the State to clarify by Thursday whether the suspension would be revoked, thereby deferring final decision.
The Supreme Court has intervened to scrutinise both the procedural propriety of the Madras HC’s direction to take Jayaram into custody based on confessional statements, and the State’s decision to suspend him. By scheduling a hearing on June 18 and seeking explanations on the suspension, SC has maintained judicial oversight, signalling that senior officials cannot be subjected to arbitrary actions without due process.