'People Say A Lot Of Things On Mic': Madras HC Rejects Plea To Interrogate BJP Leader For Evidence In Anna University Sexual Assault Case

In a recent interview, Annamalai had claimed that he had materials connecting higher officials with the Anna University Case. He said that he knew who the accused had referred to as “Sir” at the time of the offence.

Dismissing the petition filed by Advocate ML Ravi, Justice P Velmurugan said that politicians would keep on making such comments on a mic and the Courts should not waste its time on such matters.

“There are so many issues in this country. Focus on it. People will say a lot of things on mic. We don't have to bother about it. It's all nonsense. Does that mean the court has to give time for all those nonsense things? Don't waste the time of the court,” the judge orally remarked.

Ravi submitted that in the aftermath of the Anna University sexual assault case, there were speculations that the accused had called someone at the time of the incident and referred to the person as “Sir”. Ravi also submitted that during a press meet after the incident, the Chennai City Police Commissioner A Arun had clarified that the accused had acted alone and that there was no person called “Sir”.

While so, Ravi said that Annamalai had claimed that he had all the call records of the accused for a period of one year and knew who all he had talked to at the time of the incident. Annamalai had also urged the investigation team to reveal the identity of “Sir” and said that he knew the identity of the person.

Ravi submitted that Annamalai, being a former IPS officer, should have revealed and produced all the information available with him to the investigation team, instead of giving public statements, which was a violation of criminal justice. Ravi submitted that no person should hide any material available to him with regard to the criminal allegations involved in heinous crimes.

Ravi further submitted that though he had sent representations to the DGP and the Special Investigation Team, asking them to summon Annamalai and inquire about the materials, no action had been taken on the representations.

Thus, claiming that Annamalai should be inquired for concealing evidence and misleading by giving wrong information to the public, Ravi called for registering a complaint against Annamalai and to investigate him.

Case Title: ML Ravi v. Director General of Police and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 223

Case No: WP Crl 136 of 2025