Madras HC: Explain delay in nod to prosecute two IAS officers
DVAC did not file the chargesheet as directed by the court, alleged the anti-corruption organisation, Arappor Iyakkam, which filed a contempt of court petition against the agency
Madras High Court
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court directed the Public Department Secretary to explain why no action was taken between January 2024 and August 2025 regarding the grant of sanction to prosecute two IAS officers in connection with the vigilance case against former minister SP Velumani.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had registered a case alleging irregularities amounting to Rs 98.25 crore in the awarding of contracts in the Chennai and Coimbatore Corporations when Velumani was the Municipal Administration Minister in the previous AIADMK regime.
However, the DVAC did not file the chargesheet as directed by the court, alleged the anti-corruption organisation, Arappor Iyakkam, which filed a contempt of court petition against the agency.
When the case came up for hearing before him, Justice N Anand Venkatesh expressed displeasure that no explanation had been offered for the delay in obtaining sanction to prosecute the two officers accused in the scam, KS Kandasamy and K Vijayakarthikeyan.
The judge questioned why there was such an inordinate delay in seeking sanction to prosecute the officers, when sanction had already been obtained to prosecute the other accused officials and the former minister.
It was unfortunate that the Public Secretary has not taken any action for 29 months on the documents seeking sanction to prosecute the officers, the judge said, observing how political parties promise action against corrupt ministers and officials during elections, but no action was taken after coming to power.
Questioning the DVAC, the judge asked what purpose would be served in collecting evidence without obtaining sanction to prosecute the officials, and pointed out that the court was unable to commence the trial due to this.
The court then directed the Public Secretary to explain why no action was taken on granting the nod, and also ordered the Vigilance Commissioner and DVAC Director to explain why they merely forwarded the documents but failed to take follow-up steps or issue reminders to ensure action was taken.
The matter was then adjourned to January 6 for further hearing.