Uncategorized

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI W.P.Crl.(MD).No.4272 of 2026 R.Kanagavel Pandian ….Petitioner Vs 1. The Director General of Police (DGP) Tamil Nadu Police, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai city police, No.124, EVR Sampath salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007. 3. The Commissioner of Police Madurai City

by Sekar Reporter · Published August 3, 2026 · Updated August 3, 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.08.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI
W.P.Crl.(MD).No.4272 of 2026
R.Kanagavel Pandian
….Petitioner
Vs
1. The Director General of Police (DGP)
Tamil Nadu Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore,
Chennai 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai city police, No.124, EVR Sampath salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Madurai City Police, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai 625 002.
4. The Managing Director,
Sun Group / Adithya TV Channel,
Sun TV Network limited,
Murasoli Maran Towers,
73, MRC Nagar Main road, MRC Nagar,
Chennai 600 028.
…..Respondent(s)
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondents 1 to 3 to register a First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints dated 26.07.2026 and 27.07.2026, investigate the alleged criminal conduct of the management of the fourth respondent, its producers, camera crew and the four participants concerned, in accordance with the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jegadeesa Pandian, For V.B.Sundhareshwar
For R-1 to R-3 : Mr.D.Rajaboopathy
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
ORDER
Prologue:
A nation is not sustained by geography alone. Its enduring identity is forged by the sacrifices of those who placed the freedom of generations yet unborn above their own liberty, wealth, profession, family and physical well-being. The freedom enjoyed today is the fruit of suffering consciously embraced by innumerable men and women, many of whom died in obscurity and several of whom lived long enough only to witness public ingratitude.
2. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai occupies an exalted place among such immortals. His life was not a mere episode in the chronicle of the freedom movement. It was a compelling demonstration that political freedom would remain incomplete without economic self-reliance. By establishing the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company, he translated the idea of “Swadeshi” from an inspiring slogan into a formidable commercial challenge to colonial supremacy.
3. The British Empire was not sustained by political power alone; it was equally fortified by its economic monopoly. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai understood this with remarkable clarity. He therefore confronted imperial power not merely through speeches, but through indigenous enterprise. His ships became floating symbols of Indian self-respect. His commercial venture was, in truth, a declaration that Indians possessed the intellect, industry and courage to control their own economic destiny.
4. The price exacted from him was merciless. He was prosecuted, sentenced to terms of transportation for life, incarcerated and subjected to degrading physical labour. The image of that learned lawyer and patriot being compelled to draw the oil press in prison is permanently engraved upon the conscience of Tamil society. It was through such suffering that he earned the reverential appellation “Kappalottiya Thamizhan” and “Chekkizhutha
Semmal.”
5. Historical figures are not immune from scholarly inquiry. Their ideas, methods and public actions may be studied, debated and critically evaluated. Freedom of speech protects honest criticism, academic reassessment, satire and artistic expression. But a distinction exists between informed criticism and uninformed ridicule; between satire which illuminates and mockery which merely humiliates; and between creative freedom and the casual falsification of history for commercial amusement.
6. The present case lies at that sensitive intersection. It raisesquestions concerning freedom of expression, the responsibility of a broadcaster, the dignity owed to the collective historical memory of a people, the statutory mechanism governing initiation of criminal proceedings and, above all, the possibility of securing a restorative remedy proportionate to the wrong complained of.
Factual Matrix:
7. The petitioner is a practising Advocate, a social activist and the President of an organisation known as “Makkal Thalaivan V.O.C. Makkal Nala Peravai.” Claiming to be deeply interested in preserving the legacy of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, he has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. The fourth respondent operates “Adithya TV,” a television channel having considerable reach among the Tamil-speaking public. A programme styled “Digital Diary” was scheduled to be telecast on the said channel. In anticipation of the programme, a promotional clip of about thirty seconds was broadcast on the channel and uploaded on certain social-media platforms on 23.07.2026.
9. The promo featured four participants, comprising two men and two women. During their conversation, references were made to Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai, his association with the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company and the appellation “Chekkizhutha Semmal.”
10. According to the petitioner, the statements were not merely historically inaccurate but were calculated to trivialise the sacrifices of the freedom fighter. One participant allegedly described him as a mere “boatman.” Another allegedly reduced his contribution to rowing a boat from one shore to another. A further statement allegedly employed a wholly inappropriate comparison with a character from the Mahabharata. The participants were shown applauding and laughing at those remarks.
11. Deeply aggrieved, the petitioner submitted complaints on
26.07.2026 through telephone, WhatsApp and e-mail to respondents 1 to 3 and to the Chief Minister’s Special Cell. Physical copies were thereafter dispatched by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due on 27.07.2026. Alleging that the complaints disclosed cognizable offences, but that no First Information Report had been registered, the petitioner approached this Court.
12. Apart from the principal prayer for registration of a First Information Report, the petitioner sought interim directions for removal of the promo from the fourth respondent’s television channel and social-media handles and for the telecast of an unconditional public apology during prime-time hours.
Stand of the Fourth Respondent:
13. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit through its authorised signatory, Mr. M. Jyothi Basu. It acknowledged that a thirty-second promotional clip had been released on the television channel and social-media platforms on 23.07.2026.
14. The fourth respondent stated that members of the family of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai contacted the Head of Adithya TV on
25.07.2026 and requested that the promo be removed and that the episode scheduled for telecast on Sunday at 10.00 a.m. be cancelled.
15. According to the fourth respondent, immediate remedial measures were taken.
It was specifically stated that:
(i) the proposed full episode was cancelled and was never telecast;
(ii) the promo was removed from Adithya TV by 10.00 a.m. on 25.07.2026;
(iii) it was removed from Instagram by 11.00 a.m. on
25.07.2026; and
(iv) it was removed from YouTube by 3.20 p.m. on 26.07.2026.
16. It was further stated that the family appreciated the prompt response and that a granddaughter of the freedom fighter acknowledged the remedial action through a Facebook post. The fourth respondent also pointed out that, for the preceding five years, it had telecast documentaries about Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai on 5 September, his birthday, and on 18 November, his death anniversary.
17. On maintainability, the fourth respondent contended that criminal defamation is a non-cognizable offence and that, under Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cognizance of such an offence could be taken only upon a complaint made by a person aggrieved. According to it, a social activist could not seek registration of a First Information Report for alleged defamation of a deceased person when the members of the freedom fighter’s family had accepted the corrective measures.
18. The fourth respondent also relied upon the statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It consequently sought dismissal of the writ petition.
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner:
19. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the promo was the outcome of a planned production. It had necessarily passed through the stages of scripting, recording, editing and editorial approval before being broadcast. The channel could not, therefore, distance itself from the material by stating that the programme had been produced by an external agency.
20. It was argued that the participants’ apology on an internet platform was not an adequate corrective measure. Since the offensive promo was broadcast through the fourth respondent channel, the apology ought to be disseminated through that very channel with comparable visibility. An apology offered in a different medium would not necessarily reach the same audience exposed to the offending material.
21. The learned counsel ultimately submitted that the immediate concern of the petitioner was not retribution but public correction. He therefore pressed for a visible apology on the fourth respondent channel and for measures capable of educating young viewers about the life and sacrifices of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram
Pillai.
Submissions on behalf of the 4th respondent:
22. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that the impugned material was only a promo and that the full programme was never telecast. The programme had been produced by an external production team, and there was no intention on the part of the channel to insult or defame Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai.
23. The learned Senior Counsel invited the attention of this Court to the speed with which corrective measures were undertaken. The episode was cancelled, the promo was removed from the channel and social-media platforms, the persons responsible were removed from the programme, and the participants were required to tender an apology.
24. It was further submitted that the fourth respondent had been commemorating the birth and death anniversaries of Thiru V.O.
Chidambaram Pillai for the preceding five years by telecasting documentaries concerning him. This conduct, according to the fourth respondent, established that the impugned incident was an aberration and not the manifestation of an institutional intent to disparage the freedom fighter.
25. During the hearing, the learned Senior Counsel fairly stated that the fourth respondent desired to give a quietus to the issue. He undertook that the apology already tendered by the four participants would be telecast on Adithya TV itself. He also expressed the fourth respondent’s willingness to undertake suitable educational and socially beneficial measures suggested by the Court.
26. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
Point for Consideration:
27. The following questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether this Court should issue a positive direction forregistration of a First Information Report on the petitioner’s complaints dated 26.07.2026 and 27.07.2026;
(ii) Whether the fourth respondent can disclaim editorial responsibility merely because the programme was produced by an external producer;
(iii) What is the nature of the responsibility borne by television broadcasters while portraying national leaders and freedom fighters; and
(iv) Whether, in the light of the subsequent corrective measures and the undertaking given to this Court, the proceedings can be disposed of through proportionate and restorative directions?
Analysis:
28. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the Constitution
Bench decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh . The principle that registration of a First Information Report is mandatory when information presented to the police ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence admits of no doubt. At the same time, Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh cannot be understood as dispensing with the statutory classification of offences or the procedural safeguards governing prosecution for particular offences. A writ court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, ordinarily does not undertake the functions statutorily entrusted to the police or the jurisdictional Magistrate. Where the substance of a complaint relates to a non-cognizable offence, the machinery governing such an offence must be followed. Where the law restricts cognizance to a complaint by a “person aggrieved,” the said statutory requirement cannot be rendered otiose through a general writ direction.
29. Section 222 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, embodies the special rule governing cognizance of the offence of defamation. Its object is to prevent criminal defamation proceedings from being initiated by strangers having no legal grievance and to confine prosecution to persons recognised by the provision.
30. Equally, Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, preserves the authority of the jurisdictional Magistrate to consider an application seeking investigation in an appropriate case. The statutory remedy is not an empty formality. It enables the Magistrate to examine the complaint and supporting documents and determine whether an investigation, preliminary inquiry or other course permissible in law is warranted.
31. This Court does not propose to pronounce, in the present summary proceedings, whether every allegation made by the petitioner is confined exclusively to defamation or whether any distinct cognizable offence is disclosed. Such a determination must be undertaken by the competent authority upon an objective examination of the complaint and the applicable statutory
provisions.
32. Consequently, no blanket direction can be issued commanding respondents 1 to 3 to register a First Information Report for a pre-determined set of offences. At the same time, the petitioner’s complaints cannot be discarded merely because one of the allegations may relate to criminal defamation. However, having regard to the genuine remorse expressed by the fourth respondent and the prompt remedial measures undertaken by it, this Court is of the considered view that the criminal proceedings need not be pursued any further.
Editorial responsibility cannot be outsourced
33. The fourth respondent submitted that “Digital Diary” was an outsourced production. Outsourcing may explain how the material came to be created; it does not efface the broadcaster’s responsibility for deciding what enters the public domain through its channel.
34. A broadcaster possesses institutional control over the means of dissemination. It selects the programme, schedules the telecast, approves promotional material and derives commercial benefit from viewership. The ultimate editorial gatekeeping function remains with the broadcaster. Contractual arrangements with an independent producer cannot operate as a shield against public accountability.
35. A television promo is not an insignificant or privaterehearsal. It is deliberately designed to attract viewers. Indeed, it may be repeated more frequently and reach a wider casual audience than the principal programme. Describing the impugned material as “only a promo” therefore does not diminish the need for editorial scrutiny. A promo may be brief in duration, but the injury caused by it may be neither brief nor confined.
36. Digital publication has further altered the nature of dissemination. A clip broadcast for a few seconds can be recorded, copied, reposted and circulated beyond the control of its original publisher. Editorial responsibility must therefore be exercised before dissemination. Removal after publication, though relevant in mitigation, cannot invariably reverse the consequences of digital circulation.
37. In A.S. No.971 of 2015, this Court had occasion to consider the responsibility of a television broadcaster which possessed the authority to edit, cut, delete or modify objectionable material before telecast. The decision emphasised the duty of a broadcaster to verify content and exercise the editorial authority available to it. An apology published through a third-party medium may not reach the same body of viewers to whom the offending programme was transmitted. The medium of correction must, as far as possible, correspond to the medium of the original publication.
Freedom of speech and historical responsibility
38. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression. This freedom is indispensable to constitutional democracy. Courts must remain vigilant against measures that produce a chilling effect upon legitimate journalism, scholarship, humour, artistic creativity or political criticism.
39. Yet freedom of speech is neither freedom from
responsibility nor a licence for reckless falsehood. Article 19(2) itself recognises constitutionally permissible limitations. The law does not require uncritical reverence for every historical personality. It does, however, demand that freedom be exercised with due regard to reputation, public order, decency and the rights of others.
40. Satire, when informed and skilfully employed, can exposehypocrisy and challenge power. But ignorance masquerading as satire contributes little to public discourse. When a freedom fighter’s suffering is converted into a crude punchline, without historical context or discernible social purpose, the result is not the democratisation of history but its debasement.
41. This Court is particularly concerned about the effect of such content upon children and young adults. For a substantial section of the younger generation, television and social media are not supplementary sources of information; they constitute the principal window through which society, politics and history are perceived. An inaccurate representation, when repeatedly amplified through entertainment media, can displace historical truth in the popular imagination.
42. The fourth estate has traditionally been described as a sentinel of democracy. Its power is not confined to reporting events. It frames public conversations, identifies social priorities and shapes the values through which citizens understand themselves and their nation. The greater its reach, the greater is its obligation to exercise intellectual honesty and social responsibility.
43. Entertainment channels do not stand outside this responsibility. Entertainment is a legitimate and valuable pursuit, but the quest for ratings cannot justify the distortion of national history or the humiliation of those whose suffering made constitutional liberty possible. Commercial success and civic responsibility are not mutually exclusive.
The significance of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai:
44. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai was born on 5 September 1872. Trained in law, he could have pursued a secure and
prosperous professional life. Instead, he chose the hazardous path of resistance to colonial authority.
45. His establishment of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company was a remarkable act of economic nationalism. It challenged the entrenched monopoly of British shipping interests and enabled Indian enterprise to sail, literally and symbolically, under its own flag. The venture demonstrated that political subjugation was inseparable from economic dependency.
46. The colonial administration responded with prosecution and exemplary punishment. The suffering inflicted upon him was intended not merely to punish one individual but to intimidate an awakening population. Yet, the image of V.O.C. drawing the oil press transformed the intended instrument of humiliation into an enduring symbol of sacrifice.
47. The honours conferred upon him by public memory are therefore not ceremonial exaggerations. They are a people’s acknowledgment of an unpaid historical debt. His name belongs not only to his biological descendants but to every citizen who enjoys the liberty for which he suffered.
48. The Court does not suggest that freedom fighters should be placed beyond historical examination. Genuine scholarship honours them by subjecting the past to careful inquiry. What must be resisted is the culture of uninformed derision in which every institution, sacrifice and personality is reduced to momentary content intended solely to provoke attention.
Subsequent conduct and restorative justice:
49. The fourth respondent’s subsequent conduct deserves fair acknowledgement. The complete episode was not telecast. The promo was removed from the television channel and thereafter from Instagram and YouTube. The family members’ grievance was promptly attended to. The participants were made to issue an apology. The fourth respondent has also asserted, without material contradiction, that it has commemorated V.O.C.’s birth and death anniversaries during the preceding five years.
50. These circumstances support the fourth respondent’s submission that the impugned incident was not the product of a settled institutional design to malign Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai. They mitigate the gravity attributable to the broadcaster’s intention, though they do not extinguish its editorial responsibility.
51. The learned Senior Counsel’s fairness has enabled theCourt to adopt a restorative course. The object of constitutional relief in a matter such as the present one is not vengeance. A direction that transforms an unfortunate incident into a sustained programme of historical education will serve the public more meaningfully than a merely punitive order.
52. An apology is valuable when it is visible, unequivocal and communicated to substantially the same audience that received the offending material. It is not an admission of institutional hostility. On the contrary, the willingness of a broadcaster to correct itself enhances, rather than diminishes, its credibility.
53. The fourth respondent’s undertaking to telecast the apology on Adithya TV is accordingly recorded. Its expressed willingness to undertake educational measures relating to the life of V.O.C. is also taken on record. On that basis, the following directions are issued.
54. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Writ Petition isdisposed of with the following directions:
(i) The undertaking given on behalf of the fourth respondent that the apology tendered by the four participants concerned shall be telecast on Adithya TV is recorded.
(ii) The fourth respondent shall telecast a clear, visible and intelligible public apology on Adithya TV. The apology shall specifically state that the statements contained in the promotional clip concerning Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai were inappropriate, historically insensitive and inconsistent with the respect owed to the sacrifices of the freedom fighter.
(iii) The apology shall be telecast during a prominent viewing slot, with adequate audio and visual clarity, on three occasions within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It shall not be obscured by advertisements, scrolling messages or distracting visuals.
(iv) The same apology shall be uploaded on the official socialmedia handles on which the impugned promo was originally
published and shall remain accessible for a reasonable period.
(v) The fourth respondent shall ensure that neither the fullepisode nor the impugned promotional clip is rebroadcast, reuploaded or commercially exploited through any platform under its ownership or control.
(vi) The fourth respondent shall formulate and implement an internal editorial-review protocol for programmes and promotional material referring to freedom fighters, national leaders, historically significant events and constitutionally sensitive subjects. The protocol shall ensure reasonable verification and review before broadcast or digital publication.
(vii) In discharge of its social responsibility, and from the funds lawfully allocable for Corporate Social Responsibility activities, the fourth respondent shall institute an annual State-level elocution competition concerning the life, sacrifices, legal career, Swadeshi enterprise and economic vision of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai.
(viii) The said competition shall be conducted every year in connection with the birth anniversary of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai on 5 September. The first such competition shall be conducted during the academic year 2026–2027.
(ix) To ensure meaningful participation, the competition shallbe organised in age-appropriate categories for:
(a) students of Standards I to V;
(b) students of Standards VI to VIII;
(c) students of Standards IX to XII; and
(d) students pursuing undergraduate courses.
The topic, language, duration and mode of presentation shall be suitably adapted to each category. Participation shall be open and inclusive, without discrimination.The final round of competitions to be telecasted by the 4th respondent every year.
(x) The fourth respondent may coordinate with the School Education Department, the Higher Education Department and recognised educational institutions for conducting preliminary, district-level and State-level rounds. The exercise shall be educational and non-commercial and shall not be used as a vehicle for partisan publicity.
(xi) The fourth respondent shall procure and distribute 1000 copies each of the books- Swadeshi Steam: V.O. Chidambaram Pillai and the Battle against the British Maritime Empire, authored by Professor A.R. Venkatachalapathy, VA.VU.CHI -Pannool
Thirattu:Vee.Arasu-special publication of the Government of Tamil Nadu and Kelaatha Kathai:Gurusamy Mayilvahanan- subject to availability and compliance with copyright and procurement requirements.
(xii) The said books shall be distributed to students and libraries of identified schools administered by the Greater Chennai Corporation and other Government schools, in consultation with the competent educational authorities. The distribution shall prioritise institutions where access to books concerning the freedom movement is limited.
(xiii) The fourth respondent shall bear the expenditure for the annual competition, prizes and distribution of books from its eligible Corporate Social Responsibility allocation, subject to the Companies
Act, 2013, the applicable rules and all statutory accounting and disclosure requirements. Nothing in this order shall be construed as permitting expenditure contrary to the governing CSR framework.
(xiv) The fourth respondent shall telecast, on or about 5 September every year, an educational programme or documentary of reasonable duration concerning the life and contributions of Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai. The programme shall be historically researched, suitable for young audiences and presented in an engaging manner.
(xv) A compliance affidavit concerning the initial telecast of the apology, commencement of the book-distribution exercise and the proposed schedule of the first State-level competition shall be filed before the Registry within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
55. The above directions are founded substantially upon the corrective position adopted and the undertakings offered on behalf of the fourth respondent. They shall not be treated as a finding of criminal guilt against the fourth respondent, its officers, the external producer or the participants.
Epilogue:
56. Every generation receives freedom as an inheritance, but no generation is entitled to receive it without understanding the price at which it was purchased. When history is forgotten, liberty becomes detached from sacrifice, citizenship from duty and
patriotism from principle.
57. Thiru V.O. Chidambaram Pillai did not merely operate a ship. He launched a people’s aspiration across waters controlled by an empire. He did not merely endure imprisonment. He converted the cruelty of incarceration into an enduring testament to courage. The oil press that was intended to break his spirit became, through the alchemy of sacrifice, a sacred symbol of resistance.
58. It is therefore profoundly disturbing when such a life is reduced to uninformed laughter. The concern is not that a historical figure has been denied personal praise. The deeper injury lies in teaching impressionable viewers that sacrifice is naïveté, patriotism is material for ridicule and ignorance is entertainment.
59. The fourth estate must resist this descent. Its freedom is indispensable, but its influence carries a corresponding moral responsibility. It must question power without corrupting truth, entertain without impoverishing public sensibility, and innovate without severing the younger generation from its historical roots.
60. The remedial measures directed in this order are intended neither to censor humour nor to compel ceremonial adulation. Their object is to convert an episode of historical insensitivity into an enduring educational endeavour. If ten thousand young readers discover the life of V.O.C.; if schoolchildren speak about Swadeshi, sacrifice and self-reliance; and if a broadcaster strengthens its editorial conscience, the response will have achieved more than punishment ever could.
61. A public apology does not diminish the stature of an institution. The capacity to acknowledge an error is itself a sign of institutional maturity. The fourth respondent, having promptly withdrawn the objectionable material and having accepted the restorative course suggested by this Court, is expected to implement the directions in their true spirit.
62. The ships of the Swadeshi Steam Navigation Company may no longer sail the waters between Thoothukudi and Colombo. Yet the ideals they carried self-respect, courage, indigenous enterprise and freedom from economic subjugation must continue to sail through the minds of succeeding generations. It is the shared duty of educational institutions, media houses, public authorities and citizens to keep that voyage alive.
63. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
03.08.2026
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Sml
To
1. The Director General of Police (DGP)
Tamil Nadu Police,
Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai city police, No.124, EVR Sampath salai, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Madurai City Police, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai 625 002.
4. The Managing Director,
Sun Group / Adithya TV Channel,
Sun TV Network limited,
Murasoli Maran Towers,
73, MRC Nagar Main road, MRC Nagar, Chennai 600 028.
5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.