Supreme Court Dismisses TN Anti-Corruption Agency's Plea For Fresh Probe Against Ex-CM Palaniswami In Highway Tender Scam Case

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a special leave petition by the anti-corruption directorate against the high court's decision to dismiss a plea seeking an investigation into the role of the former chief minister in the alleged scam. Palaniswami, the general secretary of All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), served as the head of the state government between 2017 and 2021. He has been accused of awarding contracts in the highway department based on favouritism during his tenure as the chief minister, although an earlier inquiry conducted by the DVAC cleared him of suspicion. Recently, the government led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) ordered a fresh inquiry, leading to the high court criticising this 'volte-face' as politically motivated.

Recently, the directorate raised objections to the listing of the case before a bench led by Justice Trivedi, contending that it was initially set to be heard by a bench headed by Justice Aniruddha Bose. The DVAC, in a November 28 letter, requested the Supreme Court Registrar (Listing) to allocate the case to the bench led by Justice Bose, emphasising the practice of listing a matter only before the assigned bench. The letter referred to previous hearings before Justice Bose and argued against listing the case before another judge when the senior judge is available.

Despite the DVAC's objections, the matter was listed before Justice Trivedi's bench. Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the directorate, expressed trust in the bench but criticised the registry's functioning. 

Dave vehemently opposed the high court's observations against an inquiry into Palaniswami's involvement in the alleged highway scam as prayed for by a petition by a private complainant, particularly a statement insisting that the only remedy available to the complainant was under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. "There cannot be any objection to law taking its own course. These observations should not come in the way of further investigation," the senior counsel said.

He also relied on a number of judgments in aid of his contention that an inquiry may, if justified, be ordered by a subsequent government. "The change of the government is no ground, we are entitled to investigate. Your Lordships have held that investigation must take place and it cannot be interdicted. The high court furthermore granted something that was not prayed for. The vigilance commission was permitted to investigate further. Although these were not subject matter of the complainant's petition, the entire judgment proceeds on the basis of these. Your Lordships have held that where something is not a subject-matter of petition, where there is no relief prayed with respect to it, the court cannot touch it."

"This is rightly observed. There is nothing wrong about this. This is an absolutely perfect order. We are not observing anything," Justice Trivedi said, expressing her disinclination to interfere with the high court's order.

"This is a serious case of corruption. Your Lordships must allow us to at least investigate," Dave tried again, pointing out that the preliminary investigation was made when Palaniswami was in charge of the public works department and the police, besides being the chief minister of the state.

"Whatever is usually permissible within the four corners of the law, you may do. No one is stopping you. We are neither allowing anything, nor stopping you," Justice Trivedi countered.

"I bow down," Dave replied, "But the high court's observations will come in the way. This kind of arguments of political rivalry should not come in the way of an investigation, if the use of the power is for a legitimate object. Your Lordships have held this."

Urging the bench to issue notice in the Tamil Nadu DVAC's plea, the senior counsel said, "This matter will require detailed examination. It's very serious."

However, despite his fervent appeals, the top court ultimately decided to dismiss the special leave petition after hearing his submissions. 

Case Details

Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. Edappadi Palaniswamy & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11315 of 2023