Leader of the Opposition Edappadi K. Palaniswami on Thursday vehemently opposed a request made by DMK organising secretary R.S. Bharathi to withdraw the latter’s 2018 plea seeking a Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) inquiry into alleged nepotism and corruption in award of contracts by State highways department.
Appearing before Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, Senior Counsel N.R. Elango, representing Mr. Bharathi, sought the court’s permission to withdraw the 2018 petition in view of various developments. He said the High Court had ordered a CBI inquiry in the case on October 12, 2018 but the Supreme Court reversed the order on August 3, 2022.
State Public Prosecutor Hasan Mohamed Jinnah told the court that the Vigilance Commissioner had not accepted a preliminary inquiry report submitted by the DVAC in 2018 giving a clean chit to Mr. Palaniswami who was the then Chief Minister holding the State highways portfolio. He also stated that a fresh inquiry had been ordered now into the matter.
On the other hand, advocate M. Mohamed Riyaz, representing Mr. Palaniswami, told the court that the High Court had in 2018 ordered a CBI inquiry into the issue without even there being a plea made for such an inquiry by the petitioner and without even perusing a copy of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the DVAC in a sealed cover.
Hence, Mr. Palaniswami moved the Supreme Court. On August 3, 2022, a three-judge Bench comprising the then Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli wondered the High Court could have ordered a CBI inquiry and commented upon the DVAC inquiry without even opening the sealed cover to peruse the inquiry report.
After setting aside the High Court’s order for CBI inquiry into the complaint, the Supreme Court Bench wrote: “We remit the matter back to the High Court to consider the matter afresh including the preliminary report filed by respondent number 2 (DVAC) against the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
Further, making it clear that the observations made by the High Court in the October 2018 order should not come in its way in deciding the matter afresh, the Supreme Court had also ordered inclusion of Mr. Palaniswami as one of the respondents before the High Court because the 2018 order had been passed without even hearing him.
“Therefore, it is necessary that this court must hear the petition and dispose it in the light of the 2018 inquiry report of the DVAC. The petitioner should not be allowed to withdraw the petition at this stage,” Mr. Riyaz contended. The judge recorded the submissions made by all the advocates and decided to take a call on July 13.
