<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea to restrain the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister from holding the home portfolio till completion of investigation and trial in Sathankulam twin custodial death case. </p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde, R Subhash Reddy and A S Bopanna declined to consider the petition filed by advocate A Rajarajan.</p>.<p>The petitioner also sought a direction to investigate the role of the Chief Minister in screening and safeguarding the accused police persons at the initial stage by giving an open press statement on June 24. </p>.<p>He claimed <em>prima facie</em> it appeared that Chief Minister E K Palaniswamy, acting in contrary to law and acting in derogation to the constitutional post he held, indulged in saving the persons accused of custodial torture which resulted in a twin death.</p>.<p>On June 22, 2020, at around 9 pm, a person namely Bennicks, aged around 31 years, died in Kovilpatti Government Hospital and on next date, at around 5.40 am victim's father Jeyaraj, aged around 63 years, also died in the same hospital.</p>.<p>Family members of the deceased persons alleged that the victims were subjected to severe physical torture by the police personnel belonging to Sathankulam police station in Tuticorin before remanding them in a criminal case. The CBCID had arrested five police personnel on July 2.</p>.<p>The CM, however, gave a public statement in the press meet that the deceased persons had died due to illness and thereby ruled out foul play. The statement was "highly improper, condemnable and contrary to law" because the investigation was still pending.</p>.<p>The petitioner claimed the purpose of his statement was to "safeguard the accused persons and prevent any adverse remark about his government since the accused police personnel were coming under the ministry held by the chief minister.</p>.<p>"The chief minister may also be charged under provisions of IPC offences since he was actively involved in screening and safeguarding the accused persons involved in Section 302 IPC by using his official capacity. A free and fair investigation is not at all possible under his administrative leadership," the petitioner claimed.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a plea to restrain the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister from holding the home portfolio till completion of investigation and trial in Sathankulam twin custodial death case. </p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde, R Subhash Reddy and A S Bopanna declined to consider the petition filed by advocate A Rajarajan.</p>.<p>The petitioner also sought a direction to investigate the role of the Chief Minister in screening and safeguarding the accused police persons at the initial stage by giving an open press statement on June 24. </p>.<p>He claimed <em>prima facie</em> it appeared that Chief Minister E K Palaniswamy, acting in contrary to law and acting in derogation to the constitutional post he held, indulged in saving the persons accused of custodial torture which resulted in a twin death.</p>.<p>On June 22, 2020, at around 9 pm, a person namely Bennicks, aged around 31 years, died in Kovilpatti Government Hospital and on next date, at around 5.40 am victim's father Jeyaraj, aged around 63 years, also died in the same hospital.</p>.<p>Family members of the deceased persons alleged that the victims were subjected to severe physical torture by the police personnel belonging to Sathankulam police station in Tuticorin before remanding them in a criminal case. The CBCID had arrested five police personnel on July 2.</p>.<p>The CM, however, gave a public statement in the press meet that the deceased persons had died due to illness and thereby ruled out foul play. The statement was "highly improper, condemnable and contrary to law" because the investigation was still pending.</p>.<p>The petitioner claimed the purpose of his statement was to "safeguard the accused persons and prevent any adverse remark about his government since the accused police personnel were coming under the ministry held by the chief minister.</p>.<p>"The chief minister may also be charged under provisions of IPC offences since he was actively involved in screening and safeguarding the accused persons involved in Section 302 IPC by using his official capacity. A free and fair investigation is not at all possible under his administrative leadership," the petitioner claimed.</p>
