Graft in Regn dept: DVAC chief made respondent

Kirubakaran went on to say that with such a sad state of affairs, it is high time to take some serious measures to prevent corruption, as the menace would fit into all definitions of offences, which have been mentioned under Prevention of Corruption Act as well as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and National Security Act 1980.

There is no use in speaking about weeding out corruption, unless stringent statutes like “Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offender, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers Act and Video Pirates Act, 1982 and National Security Act 1980 are enacted to detain the corrupt elements/ officials under preventive detention law as a preventive measure,” the judge added. Also, on expressing dissatisfaction over the answers to the queries raised by him earlier, Justice Kirubakaran on including the Vigilance Commissioner, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption as a respondent in the case posed another set of 14 questions, which included the number of raids conducted by the DVAC throughout the state in all departments including the Registration offices, for the past 10 years and how many persons have been booked and arrested. 

The other queries included the number of criminal cases filed each year by the DVAC in the past 10 years and the rate of conviction in the corruption cases in the state during the same period. Directing the state to provide details on the steps taken on the issues raised by him, Justice Kirubakaran posted the case to December 11 for further hearing.