The controversy emerged in Thiruvallur, where a 16-year-old boy was allegedly abducted by a group linked to a familial dispute over an inter-caste marriage. The complainant’s account implicates Jayaram’s official vehicle being used during the ordeal. Jayaram, a 1996-batch IPS officer, was taken into custody on June 16 after the High Court’s order but released the following day. However, the state put him under suspension hours later.
In the Supreme Court hearing on June 18, the bench asked state counsel whether there was a basis for the suspension now that Jayaram had joined the investigation. Justice Bhuyan emphasised: “You can’t do this. It is very demoralising.” Justice Manmohan, noting his own 18 years on the bench, expressed surprise that the High Court felt empowered to order the arrest of a senior IPS officer during anticipatory bail proceedings.
State counsel said instructions were being sought to consider revoking the suspension. The bench posted the matter for a further hearing on June 19.
The underlying case involves allegations that a former police inspector, a lawyer, and an MLA, KV Kuppam’s Poovai Jagan Moorthy, played roles in the abduction of the teenager. Investigators assert the boy was left injured near a hotel in Jayaram’s vehicle. Jayaram and Moorthy were questioned at Thiruvallangadu police station; Jayaram spent nearly 25 hours in custody before his release.
Petitioners argue that the High Court did not assign any nuanced ground before directing the arrest of a public servant not even party to the anticipatory bail petition. The Supreme Court underscored that public servants must be accountable, but procedural fairness and morale considerations should guide such drastic measures.
This case surfaces longstanding tension between judicial zeal to enforce accountability and executive caution in interfering with service processes. The Supreme Court’s intervention could redefine boundaries between judicial directions in bail hearings and executive discretion over disciplinary action targeting senior officers.
H M Jayaram, with nearly three decades in the service and heading key investigations across the state, is nearing retirement in May 2026. His petition challenges both the High Court’s order and the executive’s suspension.
The Supreme Court’s forthcoming order—as anticipated on June 19—will test institutional balance. Will it prompt the reinstatement of a senior officer and curb the judiciary’s reach in anticipatory bail proceedings? Or will it uphold the High Court’s stance on public servants’ accountability?