The Madras High Court on Tuesday asked why it should not order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam having amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income since becoming an MLA in 2001.
DMK petition
Justice G. Jayachandran raised the question during the hearing of a petition filed by DMK Rajya Sabha MP R.S. Bharathi, seeking a direction to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to book a case against the Deputy CM on his complaint.
When the judge wanted to know what had the DVAC done so far though more than four months had elapsed since the petitioner lodged the complaint on March 10, State Public Prosecutor (in-charge) C. Emilias replied that the complaint had been forwarded to the Chief Secretary. Besides, a copy of the covering letter written to the Chief Secretary had been marked to the complainant.
Not satisfied with the reply, the judge asked sternly: “Is it sufficient to forward the complaint and mark a copy to the petitioner? Did you conduct any preliminary enquiry?”
Links with Shekhar Reddy
The State PP responded to the question with an emphatic “no” and the judge asked “why?” There was no answer for it and Mr. Justice Jayachandran threw the next question and sought to know the action taken with regard to the alleged links between Mr. Panneerselvam and controversial businessman J. Shekhar Reddy.
Referring to a specific statement in the complaint regarding a diary, recovered by Income Tax officials from Mr. Reddy, containing crucial details regarding his alleged links with Mr. Panneerselvam, the judge began saying: “Some other information is also furnished by them regarding a diary seized during IT raid...”
To this, the State PP said: “That diary is now with the CBI.” The reply prompted the judge to say: “Then, let this complaint also be probed by the CBI.” He also asked senior counsel N.R. Elango, representing the petitioner, to serve a copy of the petition as well as the complaint on the counsel for the CBI.
Immediately, Additional Advocate General C. Manishankar, also representing the DVAC, intervened and requested the judge to grant him time till Monday for perusing the petition and submit his detailed reply. Acceding to his request, the judge adjourned further hearing on the case by a week.
However, K. Srinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases, who was also present in the court, told the judge that the case being investigated by them against Mr. Reddy was related to recovery of huge cache of ₹2,000 notes immediately after demonetisation of ₹500 and ₹1,000 notes.
“This issue (raised in the present petition filed by Mr. Bharathi) is not connected with it,” he said. Nevertheless, Mr. Elango told the court that he would serve the copy of the petition as well as the complaint on the CBI counsel too before the next date of hearing.
In his petition, Mr. Bharathi had accused Mr. Panneerselvam of having amassed wealth by abusing his official positions and investing the money in the names of his wife, three sons, brothers, other relatives and business associates. He also alleged that the Deputy CM had made false declaration of assets during the elections.
