The ongoing POCSO case involving 84-year-old granite businessman R. Veeramani, popularly known as “Gem Veeramani,” has faced allegations of investigative lapses. The case has also raised a separate concern over the circulation of sensitive information that could reveal the identity of children involved in sexual-offence cases.
The latest controversy emerged after photographs reportedly showing Veeramani with minor girls were circulated on social media and published by some media organisations. Greater Chennai Police subsequently warned that publishing or sharing material that could identify a child involved in a POCSO case could attract legal action. Police appealed to people who possess such material to hand it over to investigators instead of sharing it publicly.
The issue has drawn attention from child-rights activists, who say that protecting the privacy and dignity of child victims is an important part of the POCSO framework. They have also pointed to earlier cases in Tamil Nadu where information connected to sexual-assault investigations entered the public domain.
One example is the Anna Nagar POCSO case involving a 10-year-old girl in 2024. During the investigation, an audio recording connected to the child’s interaction with police was circulated online. The Madras High Court later dealt with allegations concerning the treatment of the child and her family, as well as the disclosure of information that could identify the minor. A 2026 court order recorded that separate FIRs had been registered over the alleged disclosure of the identity of the child and her family in the public domain.
The court has also noted that the circulation of material identifying the minor raised concerns about confidentiality and the statutory protection available to child victims. The case was subsequently investigated by a Special Investigation Team constituted following Supreme Court proceedings.
Another major example was the Anna University sexual-assault case in December 2024. In that case, an FIR containing identifying details of the survivor became publicly accessible. The Madras High Court described the leakage as a serious lapse and directed authorities to remove identifying information from public platforms. The court also ordered interim compensation of Rs 25 lakh to the survivor and directed an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the leak.
The High Court stressed that information contained in an FIR involving sexual offences should not be placed in the public domain when it could reveal the identity of the survivor. It also directed authorities to establish stronger procedures to protect sensitive FIRs and initiate departmental action against officials found responsible for lapses.
Under Section 23 of the POCSO Act, reports in the media cannot disclose a child’s identity, including details such as the child’s name, address, photograph, family information, school or neighbourhood, or other information that could lead to identification. The law allows disclosure only in limited circumstances when a Special Court records reasons and considers it to be in the child’s interest.
The Supreme Court has also previously emphasised that the identity of victims of sexual offences must be protected and that information that can indirectly identify a victim should not be disclosed.
Against this background, activists argue that the Veeramani case raises questions not only about the investigation but also about how confidential information is handled by agencies and media organisations. They say that protecting children should remain a priority even when a case attracts significant public and political attention.
The circulation of photographs or other material that may identify child victims can have consequences beyond the immediate investigation. It can expose children and their families to unwanted public attention and may affect their privacy, dignity and safety.
As the investigation into the Veeramani case continues, questions over investigative procedures and the protection of sensitive information are likely to remain under scrutiny. Authorities will also face the challenge of ensuring that evidence is properly investigated while information capable of identifying child victims remains protected.