CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Thursday stayed the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued against DMK former Minister EV Velu in a Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) case alleging corruption in road infrastructure works, on the condition that he appears before the Investigating Officer of the DVAC for enquiry on July 15.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan also directed the DVAC not to take any coercive action against Velu till July 28 and ordered the department to file its counter to his petition seeking to quash the FIR and the subsequent LOC.
The DVAC had registered an FIR against Velu and others on June 25, 2026, based on a complaint lodged by NGO Arappor Iyakkam in 2022 alleging that payments were made to a contractor before the commencement of road infrastructure works, resulting in corruption in the allotment of project funds.
Following the State government’s sanction to prosecute Velu, the FIR was registered. The DVAC claimed that there was prima facie material indicating that the accused, including Velu, had entered into a criminal conspiracy causing loss to the State exchequer. The case has been registered under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7(c), 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Meanwhile, Velu, who had travelled to Singapore for medical treatment, was issued a Look Out Circular.
When the quash petition came up for hearing, Senior Counsel Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Velu, submitted that although Arappor Iyakkam had lodged the complaint in 2022 alleging irregularities in road-laying contracts during Velu’s tenure as Minister, no action was taken for four years and the FIR was registered only after the change of government.
The counsel submitted that Velu had cooperated with the DVAC during a search at his residence on June 25, 2026, and left for Singapore the next day for medical treatment. Despite seeking time till July 12 to appear before the DVAC, a summons was issued directing him to appear on July 9, following which the LOC was issued. He argued that an LOC can be issued only if a person deliberately evades appearance or arrest, whereas Velu was undergoing medical treatment in Singapore and had not deliberately avoided the investigation.
Citing Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Luthra argued that the FIR was registered without obtaining the Governor’s prior approval, which was mandatory, and contended that the LOC was issued without any credible material to justify it.
Senior Advocate P. Wilson, also appearing for Velu, argued that the FIR was registered only after the change of government and that the LOC was issued without any credible material establishing its necessity or proportionality. He alleged that the case was an instance of “regime vengeance” and submitted that the DVAC was repeatedly threatening arrest despite Velu being 76 years old and a heart patient.
Opposing the plea, Public Prosecutor John Sathyan submitted that there was sufficient material to show that payments were made to contractors even though the work had not been carried out.