Anna University case: Who formed SIT? EPS, Vijay slam ‘puppet CM’ Stalin

The conviction of Gnanasekaran in the Anna University sexual assault case has sparked a war of words between Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin and AIADMK leader Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS), with both leaders trading barbs over the handling of the case and the state’s law and order situation.

Also read: Anna University sexual assault accused found guilty of 11 charges

Stalin praised the Tamil Nadu Police for delivering justice to the victim within five months, thanking the investigating officers, public prosecutors, and the judiciary.

He emphasised his directive to the police: “No crime should occur, but if it does, no culprit should escape. Investigations must be swift, and punishment ensured.”

The Chennai Mahila Court convicted Gnanasekaran on Wednesday (May 28), under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the IT Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, with sentencing scheduled for June 2. The SIT, appointed by the Madras High Court, had ruled out the involvement of others, though opposition leaders continue to demand further investigation.

Stalin slams Opposition over ‘cheap politics’

Stalin also accused the Opposition of indulging in “cheap politics” and claimed his government had shattered their intentions, reaffirming the DMK’s commitment to upholding justice and women’s safety.

Also read: Anna University case: CM Stalin lauds police for swift action

However, EPS, the Leader of the Opposition, hit back sharply, calling Stalin a “puppet Chief Minister” who repeatedly proves his incompetence. EPS questioned the DMK government’s handling of the case, pointing out that the Madras High Court had to intervene and order a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe due to initial lapses.

“If your police delivered justice, are you confessing to influencing the SIT probe, which should have been free of political interference?” EPS asked, accusing Stalin of taking credit for judicial actions while crimes continued to rise under his administration.

EPS further highlighted that the accused, Gnanasekaran, was a known DMK sympathiser, a claim Stalin had acknowledged in the Assembly, though the DMK denied any official party affiliation.

AIADMK questions mention of ‘Sir’ in FIR

The AIADMK leader raised questions about the mysterious “Sir” mentioned in the survivor’s FIR, alleging that the DMK government was shielding influential figures. “Your regime is entirely against justice and women’s safety. This government will fall, and an AIADMK government will ensure all those behind ‘Sir’ are held accountable!”

The political controversy intensified after photographs surfaced showing Gnanasekaran with DMK functionaries, leading to allegations from the Opposition that he was a DMK student wing office-bearer. Tamil Nadu Law Minister S Regupathi and Stalin refuted these claims, clarifying that Gnanasekaran was only a sympathiser, not a party member.

Vijay attacks DMK govt

Meanwhile, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) leader Vijay has also criticised Stalin over the DMK government’s handling of the case, despite welcoming the conviction of Gnanasekaran.

In a statement, Vijay praised the Madras High Court for its proactive role in ensuring justice, crediting its oversight for the case’s swift resolution within five months. He noted that public protests and political pressure, including his own petition to the Governor, compelled the court to order an SIT probe. The SIT’s efforts led to Gnanasekaran’s arrest under the Goondas Act on January 5, 2025, and the filing of a chargesheet on February 24.

Vijay accused the DMK of attempting to cover up administrative failures, particularly after the High Court criticised the police for leaking the FIR, causing distress to the survivor and her family. The court had ordered the state to pay Rs 25 lakh as interim compensation, to be recovered from negligent police officers.

Vijay slammed Stalin for taking credit for the verdict, calling it a “blatant lie”, and accused the DMK of shielding its failures. He demanded maximum punishment for Gnanasekaran and action against all involved, including the mysterious “Sir” mentioned in the FIR.

Echoing EPS’ charge of Stalin being a “puppet CM,” Vijay labelled the DMK regime as ineffective, failing to ensure law and order or women’s safety. He predicted that Tamil Nadu’s people would oust the DMK in the 2026 elections, standing firm for justice and women’s rights.