Taking serious note of allegations of police brutality and evidence tampering in the case concerning the custodial death of 29-year-old Ajithkumar, the Madras High Court recently ordered a judicial inquiry against erring police officials.

While hearing a batch of pleas concerning custodial deaths, a Bench of Justices SM Subramanian and AD Maria Clete directed the Additional District Judge S John Sundarlal Suresh to conduct the inquiry and submit a report by July 8.

The Court further directed the State to initiate appropriate action against all responsible officials and hand over all case materials and digital evidence to the judicial authority.

"As per the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General, the State Government shall initiate all appropriate actions against the higher officials, who are all responsible and accountable for the custodial death of the deceased Ajith Kumar and submit a status report before this Court on or before 08.07.2025..."

The incident arose after Ajithkumar, a temple guard, was taken into custody on the suspicion of theft following a complaint by temple visitors. While in custody, he was allegedly tortured by a special police team. On June 28, he was taken to an office on the temple premises, where he was brutally beaten up with lethal weapons and chilli powder was poured on his face and private parts. He was eventually taken to a government hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival.

His mother lodged a complaint at Thiruppuvanam Police Station on June 29 as, no first information report (FIR) was registered until then. It later came to light that no FIR was lodged against him for the alleged theft.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that a compromise meeting took place involving senior police officials and local DMK party members. A compensation of ₹50 lakh and a government job for Ajithkumar’s brother were reportedly offered, the Court was informed.

It was further alleged that one Dr Nikitha, who filed the theft complaint that led to Ajithkumar's arrest, used her connections with an IAS officer to pressure the police into taking stringent action.

Given serious concerns over evidence destruction and witness safety, the petitioners urged the Court to ensure evidence preservation and protection for witnesses.

They also contended that the action initiated by the State is an eyewash and that they want to hide the custodial death under the carpet.

In response, the Additional Advocate General informed the Court that an FIR had been registered and five constables from the special team were arrested under Section 103(1) BNS. The State further assured the Court that appropriate action would be taken against all responsible, including senior officers.

The Court at the outset noted,

"A plain reading of the nature of the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased would reveal that he was brutally attacked all over the body and died. Even an ordinary murderer would not have caused this much of injuries to a person is the view of this Court. He is not even an accused as on 27.06.2025 and no First Information Report for theft was registered."

The material evidence is unsafe in the hands of the local police, who are all directly or indirectly interested parties to the custodial death, the Court noted.

"The present custody and status of the CCTV footages, including whether a clean copy was made in the presence of an independent official or Magistrate and what chain of custody protocols have been maintained. Whether any forensic certification of footage was undertaken and whether any tampering is ruled out is also a question to be investigated. The respondents however are bound to ensure that original CCTV footages and any mirror copies made thereof are preserved intact and not subjected to any deletion, overwriting or editing."

With these observations, the Court directed the State to provide necessary protection to the eyewitnesses to the case.

The matter will be heard next on July 11.

Advocates Henri Patrick Tiphange, RM Arun Swaminathan, E Mareeskumar, P Ramasamy and R Alagumani appeared for the petitioners.

Advocates P Thilak Kumar, M Ajmal Khan, T Senthil Kumar and P Subbaraj appeared for the State authorities.

[Read Order]