Tamil Nadu court sentences convict in Anna university case to life imprisonment
Chennai (PTI): A Mahila Court here on Monday awarded life sentence for a minimum period of 30 years without remission to the accused Gnanasekaran, who has been convicted for sexually harassing a student on the Anna University campus in December last year.
Mahila Court judge M Rajalakshmi, who convicted Gnanasekaran on May 28, awarded sentences in respect of each 11 charges proved by the prosecution against him.The sentences run concurrently, the judge added.
While convicting the accused, the court held that the prosecution proved the the sexual assault case that rocked Tamil Nadu in December 2024, beyond reasonable doubt.
The government counsel then told reporters that the prosecution filed 11 charges against Gnanasekaran and proved all of them using documentary and forensic evidence.
The judge, while convicting Gnanasekaran, said that he sought a lenient sentence claiming he was the sole bread-winner of the family and prosecution objected to it and sought maximum punishment.
The sensational case had triggered a political row over Gnanasekaran's alleged connections with the ruling DMK in the state, although the party president and Chief Minister M K Stalin had in January said he was only a sympathiser and supporter, and not a member of the Dravidian party.
The case came to light after the victim lodged a complaint before the All Women Police Station in Kotturpuram here on December 23 last year. In her complaint, the victim alleged that Gnanasekaran threatened her when she was with a male friend and then sexually harassed her.
Gnanasekaran was later arrested.
The FIR of the case was downloaded from the CCTNS website of Tamil Nadu police and broadcast by certain sections of the media which created a furore.
Later, the Madras High Court transferred the investigation of the case to a Special Investigation Team, which also probed the FIR leak.
The SIT filed a charge sheet in February before a magistrate court. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Mahila Court.
The Mahila court framed charges against Gnanasekaran under sections various sections of the BNS, including sexual harassment, BNSS, IT Act and the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna dissents on SC collegium’s recommendation of Justice Pancholi
Dissent cites seniority concerns, Gujarat High Court’s over-representation
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge B.V. Nagarathna has recorded a dissent note against the collegium’s recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the apex court, The Indian Express reported.
The five-member collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and Nagarathna, reached the decision with a 4–1 split. Justice Nagarathna, the lone woman on the bench, opposed Pancholi’s elevation, citing concerns over seniority and regional representation.
Justice Pancholi ranks 57th on the all-India seniority list of high court judges. Justice Nagarathna reportedly objected to the move, noting that it came less than three months after another judge from the Gujarat High Court, Justice N.V. Anjaria, was elevated to the Supreme Court. She argued that advancing Pancholi would bypass several senior judges and further increase Gujarat’s representation at the top court, while other high courts remain underrepresented.
Her dissenting note, according to reports, emphasized that such decisions could undermine the credibility of the collegium system and have long-term consequences for the administration of justice.
Justice Pancholi, who served nearly two decades in the Gujarat High Court, was transferred to Patna High Court in July 2023 and appointed its Chief Justice in July 2025. His elevation, along with that of Justice Anjaria, was intended to maintain Gujarat’s representation in the Supreme Court following the retirements of Justices M.R. Shah and Bela Trivedi earlier this year.
With a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, the Supreme Court follows criteria of seniority, merit, integrity, and regional balance in appointments. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent highlights ongoing debates about diversity and fairness in judicial elevations.
