Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president C Joseph Vijay has questioned the alleged silence of the DMK and AIADMK over the POCSO case involving granite businessman R Veeramani. Vijay raised the issue during a campaign meeting in the Madurantakam Assembly constituency, alleging that the case had not received adequate attention when the previous government was in power.

The issue has become a political flashpoint in Tamil Nadu as questions continue to be raised about the manner in which the case was initially investigated and the subsequent action taken by authorities.

Vijay questioned why the two major Dravidian parties had not publicly addressed the case in greater detail. He also sought an explanation from former chief minister and DMK leader MK Stalin over the earlier handling of the investigation.

The allegations made by Vijay are part of an ongoing political dispute, while the criminal allegations against the accused remain subject to investigation and judicial proceedings.

Vijay raises questions over earlier investigation

Speaking during his campaign, Vijay alleged that the case had come to the attention of authorities during the previous DMK administration but questioned whether sufficient action was taken at that stage.

He questioned the circumstances surrounding the initial investigation and sought clarity on why the case later required renewed investigation and further police action.

Vijay also questioned the position of the AIADMK, asking why the opposition party had not taken a stronger public position on the matter.

The TVK leader’s comments have brought the case into the centre of the ongoing political confrontation between the ruling establishment and opposition parties in Tamil Nadu.

However, claims that the case was deliberately suppressed or covered up remain allegations and have not been established as facts by a court.

Case began with complaint in 2025

The case dates back to a complaint filed with Chennai police in October 2025. Investigators were reportedly provided with a digital storage device containing video material connected with the allegations.

During the initial investigation, questions were reportedly raised about the quality and clarity of the available video evidence. Police subsequently sought closure of the case, citing difficulties associated with the evidence.

A special POCSO court, however, rejected the closure request and directed authorities to continue investigating the matter.

The case later received renewed attention after investigators examined additional digital material and other evidence. The investigation subsequently resulted in the arrest of Veeramani and two associates in August 2026.

Authorities have continued examining the allegations and are also looking into whether other individuals could have been involved.

DMK rejects allegations of cover-up

The DMK has rejected allegations that its government attempted to protect Veeramani or suppress the investigation.

The party’s representatives have maintained that the police registered a first information report after receiving the complaint in October 2025.

According to the DMK’s explanation, the initial investigation faced difficulties because the available video evidence was unclear. The party has argued that the case was not simply abandoned and that investigators were attempting to gather additional evidence.

The DMK has therefore disputed the suggestion that its government deliberately attempted to shield the accused.

The contrasting claims have become an important part of the political debate surrounding the case, with the TVK questioning the earlier handling of the investigation and the DMK defending the actions taken by authorities at the time.

Police investigation continues

The investigation into the case remains ongoing. Authorities are examining digital evidence, statements and other material connected with the allegations.

Investigators are also looking into the circumstances surrounding the alleged offences and whether additional evidence can establish what happened.

The involvement of minors has made the case particularly sensitive, with authorities required to protect the identities and privacy of the alleged victims.

The matter has also raised concerns over the circulation of explicit material allegedly connected with the case. Legal authorities have taken steps to prevent the publication or distribution of material that could reveal the identity of alleged child victims or further compromise their privacy.

The protection of victims is particularly important in cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

Political controversy intensifies

The Veeramani case has now become part of a wider political confrontation in Tamil Nadu.

Vijay has used the matter to question the record of the previous administration and demand greater accountability. His remarks have also put pressure on the DMK and AIADMK to clarify their positions on the case.

The DMK, meanwhile, has rejected the allegation that the previous government attempted to suppress the investigation and has defended the actions taken by the police at the time.

The AIADMK’s position has also become a subject of political questioning following Vijay’s remarks.

While the political debate continues, the criminal investigation remains separate from the political allegations surrounding the case. The facts relating to the alleged offences, the evidence collected by investigators and the responsibility of any accused persons will ultimately be determined through the legal process.

The ongoing investigation and subsequent court proceedings are expected to provide further clarity on the allegations, the evidence available to investigators and the circumstances surrounding the earlier stages of the case.