In a case raising serious concerns over school safety and police investigation, the Madras High Court has ordered a fresh probe into the death of a five-year-old girl inside a school campus in Tamil Nadu. The Court found gaps in the initial investigation and stressed the need for fairness and transparency.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by the child’s father, who lost his daughter under tragic circumstances on March 24, 2026. According to the school management, the child was hit by a car that entered the campus and was driven rashly.
However, the father questioned this version. He told the Court that he was not informed about the incident by the school. Instead, he learned about it indirectly and later found his daughter already dead at a hospital run by the same school administration.
He also raised doubts about the timing of the incident, pointing out that his daughter’s lunch box was returned untouched, suggesting the possibility that the incident occurred earlier than claimed.
Justice B. Pugalendhi noted several inconsistencies in how the case was handled.
“The police ought to have acted immediately upon receiving information… they are not supposed to wait for a formal complaint from the father,” the Court observed.
The Court questioned why the vehicle involved was not identified promptly despite CCTV cameras being installed in both the school and the nearby hospital. It also flagged the delay in registering the FIR and failure to secure evidence quickly.
The judge further remarked that it was “highly unbelievable” that the accused could leave the school premises after the incident, especially when a watchman had objected to their entry.
Concerns were also raised about the conduct of the school management, including the alleged lack of communication with the parents and possible suppression of key information.
The Court highlighted multiple lapses: delay in FIR registration, failure to immediately seize the vehicle, and lack of prompt action in identifying the accused.
It also noted that although police claimed to have later recovered CCTV footage, such evidence should have been secured without delay to avoid tampering or loss.
“The victims have a right to fair investigation… part of the right to life under Article 21,” the bench emphasized.
While the petitioner sought transfer of the case to the CBCID, the Court stopped short of that step. Instead, it directed the Superintendent of Police to assign the investigation to a competent and sincere officer of appropriate rank.
The new investigating officer has been instructed to:
- Provide CCTV footage copies to the petitioner
- Determine the exact time of occurrence
- Share investigation progress and postmortem findings
The Court made it clear that if the probe still lacks fairness, the petitioner may approach the Court again for further relief.
With these directions, the petition was disposed of.
Case Details
Case Title: V. Marisamy vs Superintendent of Police & Others
Case Number: Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 7378 of 2026
Judge: Justice B. Pugalendhi
Decision Date: 10 April 2026
