The reopening of the controversial Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case involving granite industrialist R. Veeramani has predictably triggered a political confrontation in Tamil Nadu. The ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government, headed by Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay, has ordered an intensified investigation after a Special POCSO Court rejected the earlier police closure report and directed further investigation. The development has given the present government a clear legal basis to revisit a case in which serious questions have been raised about the adequacy of the initial investigation. That, however, has not prevented the principal Opposition DMK from alleging political vendetta. Former ministers and DMK representatives have maintained that the earlier government did not shield anyone and that an FIR was registered soon after a complaint was received in October 2025. Their argument is that the initial investigators could not conclusively identify the minor shown in the video, recover the original digital recording or gather sufficient corroborative evidence, leading to the closure report. Former chief minister M.K. Stalin has also rejected allegations that his government protected Veeramani. These are legitimate political arguments. But they should not obscure the more important question: what happened to the alleged victims, and was every reasonable avenue of investigation exhausted? The answer becomes particularly significant because the subsequent investigation has produced developments that were not available, or were not acted upon, during the initial probe. The minor girl at the centre of the original video has reportedly been traced and her statement recorded before a magistrate. Police have also recorded statements from additional alleged survivors, with reports indicating that more than seven girls who were minors at the time have now come forward. Investigators are examining whether the alleged abuse may have extended over many years. The reported examination of digital evidence, property transactions and an alleged financial trail running into tens of crores adds another dimension. Reports have put the figure under investigation at around ₹70 crore, with investigators examining whether money or transactions were connected to attempts to suppress evidence, influence proceedings or silence victims. These are investigative questions, not established conclusions, and must remain subject to evidence and due process.
Yet the larger social context cannot be ignored. NCRB data for 2023 recorded 1,77,335 crimes against children, up 9.2 per cent from 2022, with 67,694 cases registered under POCSO, accounting for 38.2 per cent of crimes against children. These numbers alone demonstrate why allegations involving the sexual exploitation of minors cannot be reduced to another round of partisan political combat. This is also why the present investigation deserves to be judged by its conduct, not by the political party that ordered it. If the earlier investigation was adequate, the evidence should establish that. If there were lapses, those responsible must answer. If fresh evidence has genuinely emerged, it must be pursued. And if allegations of institutional interference or financial influence are found to have substance, the law must take its course irrespective of the political identity of anyone involved. There is equally a case for independent scrutiny if questions of institutional conflict arise. A probe involving senior police officers, financial transactions and alleged failures in the earlier investigation must inspire public confidence. Whether that ultimately requires a central agency or another independent mechanism is a matter for the competent authorities and courts—not political convenience. The DMK is entitled to question the motives of the present government. The TVK is equally entitled to ask why the earlier investigation reached a closure report that the Special POCSO Court refused to accept. But neither argument should become a substitute for evidence. The fundamental issue is neither Vijay versus Stalin nor TVK versus DMK. It is whether a child alleged to have been sexually exploited receives justice and whether the system has the courage to follow evidence wherever it leads. When the alleged victims are minor children, justice cannot be subordinated to politics. Nor can politics be allowed to decide who deserves scrutiny. The law must decide—and it must do so without fear, favour or political calculation.
