Veeramani POCSO Act case: Madras High Court directs media not to discuss factual matrix of case

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The Judge, during the course of the hearing, told the counsel for a television channel that “there are things more important in life than TRP ratings (a key metric used to measure the popularity of television programmes).” File. | Photo Credit: V. Ganesan

The Madras High Court on Friday (September 25, 2026) restrained the mainstream media, YouTube channels and all other digital platforms from holding discussions touching upon the factual matrix of a child sexual abuse case booked against R. Veeramani of Gem Granites and others.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan ordered that the media would be at liberty to hold discussions on issues that arise out of child abuse as long as the conversations do not touch upon the factual matrix of the crime under investigation by the Greater Chennai City Police.

To ensure the interests of people at large to know the progress made by the police in the investigation of the case, the judge directed an all-women Special Investigation Team (SIT), constituted by Director General of Police Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, to probe the case and to issue weekly press releases.

The judge also granted an interim injunction restraining the media outlets and such other entities from publishing, broadcasting, transmitting, circulating, reproducing or otherwise disseminating any video or screen grab which touches upon the crime under investigation.

The interim orders were passed on a writ petition filed by Tulir Charitable Trust (for prevention and healing of child sexual abuse) against the telecast of Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Material (CSEAM) by prominent television channels, including India Today, Republic TV and Sathiyam TV.

Taking serious note of the sensitive nature of the investigation, the judge, during the course of hearing, told the counsel for a television channel that “there are things more important in life than TRP ratings (a key metric used to measure the popularity of television programmes).”

State Public Prosecutor (SPP) R. John Sathyan told the court the police had decided to register a separate First Information Report (FIR) with respect to the leak of the child sexual abuse videos, related to the case, to the media, and that efforts were on to track down the culprits.

Asserting the leak had not taken place from the police department, he said a particular individual had been named widely on social media. “We are investigating it too. If found true, we will certainly take action. We are on it,” Mr. Sathyan assured the court.

‘Gem Granites’ Veeramani case: Police officer M.A. Yasmin, who first handled the case, also transferred

Justice Lakshminarayanan said there could be more victims of the sexual offence, and they may not gain the confidence to come out and confide with the police if videos of other victims keep surfacing on the television and YouTube channels even as the police are investigating the case.

Apart from the victims, the rights of the accused too could not be violated by telecasting sexually explicit materials concerning him. “How much ever you abhor his acts; assuming he did it, he also has certain rights,” the judge told the counsel for the television channel.

“While this court cherishes the right to freedom of speech and expression and, in particular, the freedom of the press to disseminate information, this court is also reminded of the gruesome Mumbai terror attacks. It was only on account of constant media coverage that all strategies of law-enforcing agencies came to the knowledge of the handlers of the terrorists,” the judge wrote in his interim order.

He went on to state, “Right has a corresponding duty, and this duty is not only owed to the children but also to the accused involved in the case. Mr. Rahul Shankar (counsel for Republic TV) is right that the press has the right to report, but whether this right to report includes a right to media trial would have to be probed into by this court.”

Deciding to examine the case in detail after all the respondents file their counter affidavits, he adjourned the matter for further hearing to September 30, 2026, after recording the submissions of the Centre as well as the State police that they had already taken steps to take down the objectionable videos from online platforms.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.