CHENNAI: Amid incidents of sexual assault on children and women in certain places in the state and the resultant public outrage, the Tamil Nadu government on Wednesday informed the Madras High Court that high-level discussions are being held to chalk out a slew of measures for combating crime against women and children in TN.
“Discussions on stringent action to deal with crime against women and children have started. A number of measures are going to be put in place,” said Advocate General Vijay Narayan.
He made the submission before a vacation bench of Justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan.
The bench was hearing a petition, moved by a rape survivor, seeking directions to the trial courts in the state to complete the trial in cases involving sexual assault on women and children within the time frame fixed under the provisions of BNSS.
The AG further said, “Anybody who harms a child will not be spared.”
Senior counsel John Sathyan, appearing for the police, submitted that the government has taken “serious note” of the incidents of crime against women and children, and added that appropriate action will be taken to prevent them.
The court granted four weeks’ time to the government to come up with measures in this regard.
The petitioner, hailing from Andhra Pradesh, was subjected to rape on September 29, 2025, in Tiruvannamalai. Two policemen – Suresh Raj and Sundar – had intercepted the vehicle she was travelling in, before taking her away to a secluded place and committing the crime.
She said the final report was filed on November 4, 2025, at the mahila court in Tiruvannamalai, but the trial has not commenced even though Section 346 (1) of BNSS stipulates two months for completion of trial from the date of filing of charge sheet.
The petitioner sought the court to issue appropriate orders to the principal district and sessions court, mahila courts and other special courts across the state entrusted with trial of sexual offence cases to strictly comply with the mandatory two-month timeline for completing trial.
The bench held that mere pendency of a revision petition by one of the accused need not stall the conduct of trial, and directed the trial judge to hold trial on a daily basis.
