"Crimes against children must not become instruments of political contestation." Examine the ethical issues involved when criminal cases become entangled with inter-party litigation.

In September 2026 the Madras High Court adjourned the DMK's plea to have the Chief Minister and two Ministers questioned in the child sexual abuse case against R. Veeramani. The court said the SIT "must be allowed to work in peace." At the same time, the DMK was seeking to file a defamation suit against the same Ministers [1]. When a criminal case gets mixed up with fights between parties, the child's interest is at risk of coming last.

Ethical issues involved

• The child becomes a political tool: POCSO is built around the child, with Special Courts, Special Public Prosecutors and the child's evidence to be recorded within 30 days [2]. Partisan litigation turns the victim into a weapon in someone else's fight.
• Conflict of interest in the investigation: A State SIT is asked to question its own political bosses. Both the old and the new ruling parties have reasons to shape the probe, which weakens its independence.
• Misuse of legal process: The Advocate General pointed to the petition and the defamation plea being pursued side by side [1]. This suggests forum-shopping, where courts are used for political messaging rather than to get a remedy.
• Presumption of innocence: Public claims that one side "shielded" the accused judge the accused and the officials before any evidence is tested.
• Pressure on the victim's family: High Courts list poor investigation and victims or families turning hostile as reasons for low POCSO conviction rates [3]. Political heat makes this pressure worse.
• Delay denies justice: Every side-dispute pushes back the chargesheet. FTSC cases already stall because forensic (FSL) reports arrive late [4].
• Loss of public trust: When accountability looks partisan, people see it as a vendetta. This undermines probity in governance.

Way forward

• Court monitoring, not steering: The court should ask the SIT for time-bound status reports rather than naming who must be questioned [1].
• Track the investigation on MHA's ITSSO portal so deadlines are on record whoever is in power [5].
• Give the case's forensic tests priority at the State FSL [4], and record the child's evidence quickly [2].
• Parties should hand any evidence to the SIT, not to the media.

Justice for children needs a neutral investigation, quick trials and restraint from politicians. Keeping criminal cases separate from party rivalry protects the child's dignity under Article 21 and the State's duty under Article 39(f). It also advances SDG 16.2: ending violence against children.