The Madras High Court recently expressed serious concern over what it described as a blatant abuse of power and erosion of public trust in law enforcement, in connection with a high-profile kidnapping case allegedly involving Poovai Jagan Moorthy, a sitting MLA from the ruling party, and H. M. Jayaram, a senior police officer serving as Additional Director General of Police. The case centers on the abduction of a minor boy who was allegedly targeted by individuals acting on the MLA’s orders, with the motive being to extract information about the whereabouts of his elder brother. The brother had reportedly eloped and married a woman against the wishes of her family, a move that apparently triggered the chain of events leading to the abduction.
The case took a more disturbing turn when it was discovered that the kidnapped boy was eventually dropped off, injured, near a hotel, and the vehicle used in this act was none other than the official car assigned to the ADGP. This prompted the Madras High Court to question the role of the senior police officer, criticize the slow pace of investigation, and issue strong remarks regarding the accountability of those in high office. The Court directed the immediate arrest of the ADGP and called for his suspension from service, warning that law enforcement officials must not be shielded from prosecution merely due to their position or rank.
Further controversy erupted when police officers attempting to enforce court orders by visiting MLA Jagan Moorthy’s residence were met with aggressive resistance by hundreds of his supporters. This obstruction of justice drew sharp criticism from the Court, which described the behavior as characteristic of a lawless "kangaroo court" and wholly unacceptable in a constitutional democracy. The Court stressed that elected representatives are not above the law and must act as role models by cooperating with investigations rather than undermining them.
Opposing the MLA’s anticipatory bail plea, the state government argued that granting such relief would set a dangerous precedent and damage efforts to rid politics of criminal elements. The government alleged that the MLA was the mastermind behind the kidnapping, had misused his influence, and was not cooperating with investigators. It also pointed to contradictions in his statements and insisted that custodial interrogation was essential to uncover the truth and prevent tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
After reviewing the arguments and available evidence, the High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail, noting that the MLA’s behavior during interrogation had been evasive. It emphasized that the stage of investigation was still early, that key individuals were yet to be apprehended, and that any leniency could compromise the integrity of the probe. The Court made it clear that such acts of intimidation and misuse of power could not be tolerated in a democratic system.
In a particularly scathing observation, the Court warned that the situation revealed the alarming possibility of a state slipping into a ‘police raj’, where law enforcement operates without accountability and in collusion with political figures. It raised concerns about the involvement of large sums of money in executing the crime and the apparent willingness of officials to bypass legal boundaries for personal or political gain.
The case has since drawn national attention. While the ADGP was arrested and briefly held in custody, the MLA was interrogated for several hours and remains under close scrutiny. Although the Supreme Court later intervened to grant the MLA conditional anticipatory bail and shifted the matter to a different High Court bench, the case continues to raise fundamental questions about the rule of law, the politicization of the police force, and the urgent need for institutional reform to protect citizens from the misuse of state power.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.