New Delhi | July 21, 2025 

In a bid to preserve the sanctity of an ongoing high-profile investigation into the Tamil Nadu idol theft cases, the Supreme Court of India on Monday directed former IPS officer Pon Manickavel to refrain from giving any media interviews or public statements. The Court also restrained the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) from making any public disclosures related to the case.

The directive came during a hearing on the CBI’s plea to modify the bail conditions granted to Manickavel, who has been accused of misconduct and procedural violations in connection with the idol theft investigation.

Court Proceedings: A Tightening of Tone

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard arguments on whether the bail conditions should be enhanced in light of Manickavel’s alleged public commentary on a matter still under active probe.

Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, appearing for Manickavel, informed the Court that his client had voluntarily ceased speaking to the media and would continue to do so. Accepting this assurance, the Court noted his undertaking to abstain from media interaction going forward. Simultaneously, it directed the CBI to exercise similar restraint, avoiding any press briefings or public statements regarding the investigation.

Additionally, Manickavel agreed to surrender his passport once renewed and assured the Court he would not leave the country without prior permission.

Background: A Complex Web of Accusations

The matter stems from a criminal complaint filed by retired DSP Kader Batcha, who himself is facing charges in connection with the 2005 Pazhavoor temple idol theft. Batcha alleged that Pon Manickavel, during his tenure leading the idol wing, falsely implicated fellow officers and publicly tarnished their reputations.

Earlier, the Madras High Court had granted anticipatory bail to Manickavel but required him to cooperate fully with the CBI and avoid any conduct that could prejudice the investigation. The current plea before the Supreme Court arose after allegations surfaced that he had breached these conditions by speaking to the press—a charge now neutralized by his undertaking.

Legal Significance: Protecting Process Over Publicity

This order marks an important judicial intervention to maintain procedural discipline in sensitive criminal probes. With both the accused and the investigating agency now legally bound to maintain silence, the Court aims to insulate the investigation from media sensationalism and trial by public opinion.

Legal observers suggest this could serve as a template for future high-profile cases where media narratives threaten to overshadow due process.

Case Title  :  CBI vs. A.G. Pon Manickavel