Why Veeramani case haunts Stalin as police ‘lapses’ give Vijay bypoll ammo
An alleged child sexual abuse case that the Chennai police once sought to close has returned to trouble the previous DMK government in various ways: a senior IPS officer considered close to the DMK first family during its tenure has been placed on compulsory wait; the ruling TVK is demanding answers from ex-chief minister M K Stalin; and even the CPI(M) is questioning why an investigation that began under the DMK dispensation was allowed to head towards closure.
The widening investigation into the alleged sexual abuse of minor girls by granite businessman R Veeramani has come at a especially tricky moment for the DMK. Tamil Nadu is in the middle of campaigning for the October 6 bypolls in two Assembly seats, Madurantakam and Dharapuram. And the case that began with a video, an FIR and an unsuccessful police investigation, has turned into a huge controversy over political responsibility and police accountability during the DMK regime.
Vijay vs Stalin
The immediate fallout of the Veeramani case played out recently when senior IPS officers A Arun and N Kannan were put on compulsory wait by the state government. While the government’s orders do not point to wrongdoing by either officer, the row has cast a shadow on not only the officers who directly investigated the POCSO case but also on the police top brass under the Stalin government.
For Stalin, that has created a formidable challenge amid his bypoll campaign, even as he has categorically denied that his government made any bid to protect Veeramani. But the FIR in the case was registered, investigated and taken towards closure during his regime – and it was a POCSO court rather than political executive that refused to let the police close the case.
Seizing on it while campaigning in Madurantakam Friday, TVK founder and Chief Minister C Joseph Vijay said, “Stalin sir, open your mouth”, challenging the DMK chief over the handling of the case during his tenure. Vijay alleged that a complaint received under the Stalin government had effectively been buried, attacking the DMK as the “theeya sakthi” or “evil force”.
Standing beside the CM was TVK candidate Maragatham Kumaravel, the former AIADMK legislator whose resignation necessitated the bypoll. Vijay projected her switch to the TVK as “conscientious” rather than “opportunism” – something rejected by Stalin.
“How can you say without any shame that TVK is a pure force and DMK is an evil force while keeping by your side Maragatham Kumaravel, whom you inducted from AIADMK to field as a candidate?” Stalin asked later.
Spiralling row
The Veeramani case was registered in October 2025 after the police received a pen drive containing a video purportedly showing the sexual abuse of a minor. In February this year, the police sought to close the case, saying they could neither identify the girl nor get sufficient evidence. A Special POCSO court however refused to accept the closure report and ordered further investigation. The renewed inquiry eventually identified survivors and led to Veeramani’s arrest along with two associates on August 29.
The Vijay government has now constituted a four-member all-women Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe into the case under the supervision of the Chennai police commissioner.
For the DMK, the politically damaging allegation may not be whether Stalin personally gave any instructions to shield Veeramani – no evidence in this regard has come to light so far. Rather, it is why such a grave case containing video evidence moved towards a closure while his government was responsible for the police, only to acquire survivors, arrests and an expanding investigation after judicial intervention.
That distinction has become crucial for Stalin. “Whoever is involved in the case, and whoever supported the accused, must be brought before the law and punished. No accused should escape,” former law minister from the DMK, S Regupathy, said, rejecting charges that the Stalin dispensation had protected Veeramani. “We have no need to take money from Veeramani to prevent his arrest,” he said.
Stalin himself has been more emphatic. He said his government had issued no instruction to protect anyone. Demanding maximum punishment for Veeramani and anyone who facilitated or protected his alleged offences, the DMK chief also accused the TVK of exploiting the suffering of children for its bypoll campaign.
“Did you come without updating your script?” Stalin shot back after Vijay demanded that he speak on Veeramani. “I have already spoken about it in detail.” He also invoked the High Court’s caution against politicising the case and accused the CM of allegedly trying to turn it into an electoral weapon.
The TVK’s Law Minister R Nirmal Kumar intensified the attack Saturday, alleging that the previous administration made attempts to “settle” the case through large financial transactions. He said the investigation would examine anyone involved in suppression, extortion or destruction of evidence.
DMK under siege
The more bristling barb for Stalin has come from the CPI(M), his former ally. which is now supporting the Vijay government from outside. CPI(M) state secretary P Shanmugam, however, also rejected the Vijay government’s attempt to claim credit for reviving the investigation. The decisive intervention, he noted, came from the POCSO court. But Shanmugam was equally unsparing about the Stalin tenure.
Shanmugam’s question was straightforward: once an FIR had been registered, why did the police not pursue the investigation more effectively before attempting to close it? He demanded a High Court-monitored SIT and the suspension, rather than merely compulsory waiting, of officers under scrutiny. He argued that leaving such officers in positions of authority could create opportunities to influence witnesses or evidence.
That leaves the DMK squeezed from multiple directions: the TVK is alleging a cover-up, the CPI(M) is questioning the earlier investigation, and the police establishment is examining decisions taken by its own officers during the previous administration.
A Arun was the Chennai police commissioner when the row first erupted. According to his junior IPS colleague, N Kannan, Arun was informed about the Veeramani case and the video as early as November 2024. It might not indicate that Arun allegedly interfered with the Veeramani probe, but politically, his name carries baggage from the Stalin tenure. As the Chennai police chief, Arun repeatedly became part of the rows involving the DMK, which made him a lightning rod for criticism of the Stalin government’s policing.
That background puts Arun’s placement on compulsory wait into sharper focus than similar action against Kannan. In Arun’s case, the development has reopened an old argument over why an officer who repeatedly attracted controversy continued to get key assignments. The irony is that some DMK insiders had cautioned against it long before the Veeramani case snowballed into a major election issue.
Vijay has already used it as part of his campaign pitch in Madurantakam. Stalin has been compelled to answer him. Nirmal Kumar has sharpened the TVK’s attack. And Shanmugam has questioned the narratives presented by both sides.
