Anna University Sexual Assault Case Verdict: Gnanasekaran Convicted as Political Questions Remain Unanswered

Gnanasekaran, the sole accused in the Anna University sexual assault case, being taken away by the police after he was convicted by the Mahila Court in Chennai on May 28.
| Photo Credit: PTI

On May 28, a Mahila Court in Chennai pronounced guilty Gnanasekaran, 37, the lone accused, in the sensational Anna University sexual assault case, on all 11 charges. The court, which delivered the verdict in less than six months after the trial began, said that the quantum of the sentence will be announced on June 2.

Gnanasekaran, who has been lodged in Puzhal prison, was present at the Mahila Court, located within the Madras High Court campus, when the verdict was delivered. He was charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Information Technology Act, and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. “The prosecution has opposed any leniency in punishment,” Mary Jayanthi, the government prosecutor, told media after the verdict.

The case relates to the sexual assault on the night of December 23, 2024, inside the Anna University premises. The survivor was out with a male friend. Gnanasekaran, who lived close by, ran a food outlet and was familiar with the college. After entering the college that night, he allegedly set his phone to flight mode and spotted the survivor and her friend. He threatened them both and took the male companion away from the place, asking the survivor to stay there. He came back a few minutes later and sexually assaulted the 19-year-old.

This is the second sensational case involving sexual assault on women in which a court in the State has pronounced its verdict this month: on May 13, a court in Coimbatore convicted all nine charged with sexual assault on several women in Pollachi. This case dates back to 2019.

Also Read | Tamil Nadu cops walk extra mile to help child sexual abuse survivors

The sexual assault in Tamil Nadu’s premier engineering institution, Anna University, became a huge embarrassment to the ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK). Soon after the incident came to light, the Chennai Police Commissioner went on record claiming that there was no other person involved in the case barring Gnanasekaran. The Madras High Court found this assertion, coming before the completion of the investigation, highly improper.

The court itself appointed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the Anna University case. The Court was later forced to restrain the SIT after it began targeting journalists instead of chasing leads to figure out if more than one person was involved in the assault. In January, the Director General of Police, in an unprecedented press release, wanted media houses to “desist from speculating on the outcome of the investigation”.

The sexual assault snowballed into an all-out political slugfest over women’s safety between the main opposition party, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) and the ruling DMK. The Leader of the Opposition in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, Edappadi K. Palaniswamy, had even authored an editorial in The Hindu, highlighting, among other issues, the lack of safety for women in the State.

One DMK leader said that there was no better reply to these allegations than the State cooperating with the courts to fast-track and complete the case. “This is exactly what our Chief Minister has done,” he said.

Welcoming the verdict, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin wrote on X: “Our police have swiftly prosecuted the case against the injustice done to the Chennai student and delivered justice in just five months. Thanks to the investigating officers, government lawyers, and the Honourable Court! I keep telling the police: ‘Crime should not be allowed to happen; if it does, no criminal should escape; they should be investigated expeditiously and punished!’ We have shattered the ideas of the opposition parties, who ran the government as a den of crime back then, and are spreading slander today and trying to play cheap politics. We will always ensure justice and the safety of women!”

Also Read | Suspended Tamil Nadu Special DGP sentenced to three years for sexual harassment

Palaniswamy said that it was because of the pressure exerted by the AIADMK that such a quick verdict was possible. “But there are many questions in the minds of the people that are yet to be answered,” he said and added: “Why was Gnanasekaran, who was initially arrested, let off? What happened between his release and re-arrest? Why was a Minister, who was close enough to have a meal at Gnanasekaran’s house, as well as the Chennai Deputy Mayor, not investigated in this case? Why did DSP Ragevandra Ravi, who was part of the SIT quit?”

There is a more important question that we have been asking for long: “Who is that ‘Sir’?” The AIADMK alleges that there was a person of influence involved in this case. Palaniswamy claimed that the government was protecting someone. “Whoever that ‘Sir’ is, he will not be able to escape. This is just half-justice,” he added.

The Pattalai Makkal Katchi leader Anbumani Ramadoss also joined the AIADMK in demanding that more should be done. “All those involved should be brought to justice,” he added.