Madras HC Orders Immediate Armed Police Protection for AIADMK MLA Whose Brother Was Murdered in 2006 Attack

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan directed the Director General of Police to provide armed security forthwith to C.Ve. Shanmugam, citing continuous life threats and a pending murder trial, while declining to transfer multiple pending investigations to the CBI.

The Madras High Court has directed the Director General of Police to provide armed police protection “forthwith” to C.Ve. Shanmugam, a sitting Member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and organising secretary of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, after finding that he had made out a prima facie case of continuous threat to his life and limb. Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, sitting singly, disposed of W.P. No. 36331 of 2024 on 29 June 2026, holding that the State's position — that no specific threat existed — could not be accepted given the history of a murder in the petitioner's family, nearly twenty complaints lodged since 2006, and an earlier High Court direction that had been effectively ignored by the police.

The Attack of 2006 and Its Aftermath

The background to the petition stretches back two decades. In 2006, a group described in the petition as criminal elements associated with political rivals arrived on a two-wheeler and attacked C.Ve. Shanmugam, his two brothers, and his brother-in-law with deadly weapons, even while security personnel were present at his residence. The petitioner escaped the attack, but one of his brothers was killed. A First Information Report was registered as Crime No. 164 of 2006.

The investigation agency filed a final report, which was taken on cognisance in S.C. No. 103 of 2008 before the Fast Track Court, Villupuram. The petitioner subsequently sought further investigation through Crl.R.C. No. 939 of 2009 before this Court, which allowed that petition. After further investigation, a fresh final report was filed and the case was re-registered as S.C. No. 284 of 2024, and it is now pending trial before the First Additional District Court, Tindivanam.

Police Protection Withdrawn Despite Earlier Court Direction

Following the 2006 attack, police protection was extended to Shanmugam even during periods when he was not a minister. That protection was later withdrawn. He submitted a representation on 19 November 2021 seeking its restoration on account of continuing death threats.

When no action followed, he filed W.P. No. 6632 of 2022 before this Court. By an order dated 28 April 2023, the Court observed that “life threat, present and real, exist against the petitioner from his political and personal adversaries.” The withdrawal of protection was set aside and the authorities were directed to take an appropriate decision in light of those threats.

The police, however, did not reinstate dedicated security. Their position, as placed before the Court, was that threat assessment reports from all agencies showed no specific threat to the petitioner's life and that, apart from the one murder, no major incident had occurred. The authorities did maintain a patta passbook at the petitioner's residence and instructed beat police personnel to watch the house and sign the passbook, but no special security detail was provided.

The Request to Transfer Cases to CBI

The primary relief sought in the writ petition was a direction to the State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent 1) and the Director General of Police (Respondent 2) to transfer all investigations pending before Respondents 3 to 17 — a range of Superintendents, Deputy Commissioners, and Inspectors of Police across Villupuram, Dharmapuri, Kallakurichi, and various Chennai police districts — to the CBI (Respondents 18 and 19).

The Court declined that relief. On examining the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent and hearing submissions, Justice Ilanthiraiyan found that the petitioner had lodged nearly twenty complaints since 2006 involving different sets of allegations and spread across different jurisdictions. Some complaints had resulted in FIRs, with final reports filed and cases pending trial. Others had been enquired into and closed after detailed inquiry.

Two specific closures were noted. A complaint lodged by one Rajaram was enquired in C.S.R. No. 541 of 2024 and closed. A separate complaint lodged by the petitioner on 18 April 2024, registered as C.S.R. No. 564 of 2024, was closed on the ground that the accused was a mentally disabled person.

Given this scattered and varied landscape, the Court held that transferring all the cases to a single investigation agency was not possible. The murder case itself is already at the trial stage in S.C. No. 284 of 2024, making an investigative transfer in that matter moot.

Why the Court Rejected the State's Threat-Assessment Argument

The State leaned heavily on threat assessment reports from multiple agencies to argue that no active threat existed. Justice Ilanthiraiyan found this contention impossible to accept given the totality of circumstances on record.

The Court pointed to four converging factors: the petitioner's brother had been murdered in an attack targeting the petitioner himself; the murder trial remains pending; the petitioner had lodged close to twenty complaints over nearly two decades reflecting a pattern of hostile conduct; and this Court had already recorded in 2023 that real and present threats to his life existed from political and personal adversaries. The police's reliance on the absence of a fresh major incident as a reason to deny dedicated protection did not address the cumulative picture those factors presented.

Shanmugam's current public standing also weighed in the analysis. At the time of filing the petition he was a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha; by the time of the order he had become a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly. He also holds the post of District Secretary of Villupuram District within the AIADMK. The Court treated these positions as relevant context for assessing the nature of the risk he faces.

Liberty to Lodge Fresh Complaints

While disposing of the petition, Justice Ilanthiraiyan also preserved the petitioner's right to approach the police if fresh causes of action arose. The order records that the petitioner is at liberty to lodge a fresh complaint before the jurisdictional police and that the investigation officer concerned, on receipt of any such complaint, is directed to act in accordance with law.

This direction is consequential given the Court's finding that the petitioner has been “facing continuous life threat” and has been lodging complaints in pursuance of that threat over a prolonged period. It leaves the door open for future court intervention if complaints are not acted upon.

Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of with the following specific directions:

• The second respondent, the Director General of Police, is directed to provide adequate police protection with necessary weapons to C.Ve. Shanmugam forthwith.
• The request to transfer investigations from Respondents 3 to 17 to the CBI (Respondents 18 and 19) was declined.
• The petitioner retains the liberty to lodge fresh complaints before the jurisdictional police, who are bound to act in accordance with law on receipt of any such complaint.

There is no order as to costs.