DVAC challenges transfer of graft probe to CBI

‘High Court did not analyse evidence submitted by agency’

October 23, 2018 12:49 am | Updated October 29, 2018 01:07 pm IST - NEW DELHI

New Delhi: An outside view of Supreme Court, in New Delhi, Wednesday, Sept 26, 2018. The Supreme Court today declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. (PTI Photo/Atul Yadav)(PTI9_26_2018_000052A)

New Delhi: An outside view of Supreme Court, in New Delhi, Wednesday, Sept 26, 2018. The Supreme Court today declared the Centre's flagship Aadhaar scheme as constitutionally valid but struck down some of its provisions including its linking with bank accounts, mobile phones and school admissions. (PTI Photo/Atul Yadav)(PTI9_26_2018_000052A)

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Monday moved the Supreme Court, challenging a Madras High Court decision to transfer the probe into a complaint of corruption and nepotism against Chief Minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The complaint concerns the award of contracts by the State Highways Department, a portfolio held by the Chief Minister.

Acting on a petition filed by DMK leader R.S. Bharathi, the High Court recently transferred the probe from the DVAC to the CBI.

In its petition before the Supreme Court, the DVAC complained that the petitioner had not asked the High Court to transfer the investigation. The registration of complaint and investigation was done by the DVAC.

The petition said the DVAC had filed a probe report in a sealed cover before the High Court. However, the High Court did not even bother to open it and presumed that the report was perfunctory. It had passed the order to transfer the probe without even analysing the evidence and documents produced by the DVAC.

The DVAC further argued that the bids for the highway contracts were given on the basis of an open tender as per the Tender Transparency Act.

Impartial probe

The DVAC, in the course of the hearing in the High Court, had submitted that a preliminary inquiry conducted by it, on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint, did not reveal any cognisable offence. It had, therefore, filed a negative report to the Vigilance Commissioner.

The High Court had expressed displeasure over this and observed that an independent agency should be made in charge for a fair and free investigation.

The court then directed the DVAC to hand over all records connected with the probe to the CBI and ordered the latter to hold a preliminary inquiry within three months.

Senior advocate Aryama Sundaram appeared for Mr. Palaniswami, while senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Yogesh Kanna pleaded for the DVAC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal represented Mr. Bharati.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.