The Madras High Court on Tuesday raised suspicions of a cover-up in the handling of corruption complaints lodged against former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji in relation to the transformer tender case [Arapor Iyakkam v. Director].A Division Bench led by Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Arul Murugan held that delay in acting on complaints and the decision to proceed only against a single official raised serious concerns about the fairness of the investigation process.."Decision to downgrade the investigation from a detailed enquiry [without registration of an FIR] to a preliminary enquiry and limit its scope solely to Kasi, strongly suggests an attempt by the government and relevant authorities to suppress the truth and these actions create a reasonable suspicion of a cover-up designed to shield high-ranking officials and political figures.".The Court’s observations center on a 2023 complaint filed by the anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam, which alleged a ₹397 crore scam involving orchestrated cartelisation in the procurement of electrical distribution transformers..In the judgment, the Court found that while the original complaint named several high-ranking individuals, including former Electricity Minister Balaji and TANGEDCO Chairman Rajesh Lakhoni. It said that the State government selectively granted approval for an enquiry against only one official, Financial Controller V Kasi..The Court slammed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) for its procedural choices. It found that the DVAC conducted an exhaustive probe involving 44 witnesses but refused to file a first information report (FIR)."It is ostensibly clear that the DVAC utilized the preliminary enquiry as a mere pretext to conduct a full-scale investigation without the legally required registration of an FIR...The scope of a preliminary enquiry is inherently narrow and must not be permitted to escalate into a "mini-trial" prior to the formal registration of an offence.".The judgment pointed to a 20-month delay in granting approval for the inquiry. This timeline far exceeds the legal limit of 4 months set by the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Court noted that the huge delay in granting prior approval remained unexplained and could also lead to destruction of evidence. It stated these delays "stultify judicial scrutiny" and undermine the rule of law..The Bench reaffirmed that if a complaint reveals a crime, an FIR is mandatory. It concluded that the authorities failed their statutory duty."By causing delay in considering the request for sanction, the sanctioning authority stultifies judicial scrutiny, thereby vitiating the process of determination of the allegations against the corrupt official.".It went on to underscore that the manner in which the probe was handled had a direct bearing on public confidence in the integrity of the investigative process. Unexplained delay, failure to register an FIR and restricting the inquiry to a single official despite wider allegations could erode trust in the system, it added.The Court emphasised that in cases involving serious allegations of corruption and public funds, the investigation must not only be fair but must also appear to be fair to the public. It held that an independent probe was necessary to restore confidence and ensure credibility in the process."In the present case, the procedures adopted by both the State and the DVAC are so heavily marked by unfairness that they fail to inspire any public confidence, creating an absolute necessity for an independent enquiry to ensure the integrity of the investigation.".In its final directions, the Court transferred the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), directing the DVAC to hand over all records within two weeks.It ordered a fresh probe in accordance with law and mandated full cooperation from the State and TANGEDCO authorities..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate V Raghavachari with Advocates V Suresh and AG Vedavikas.The State was represented by Advocate General PS Raman and Additional Advocate General P Kumaresan, assisted by Advocates E Ranganayaki and DR Arun Kumar..The DVAC was represented by Senior Advocate NR Elango with Additional Public Prosecutors ER Raj Thilak and KMD Muhilan.Balaji was represented by Senior Advocate V Karthic with Advocate Senthil S..Other respondents were represented by Advocate J Srinivasa Mohan, briefed by TVJ Associates..[Read Judgment]
