TITLE: RS Bharathi v. The Director of Vigilance, Anti Corruption and anrs.
Decided On: July 18, 2023.
Criminal Original Petition No.20711 of 2018.
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh.
Introduction:
Dismissing the petition, Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that the earlier preliminary enquiry conducted by the DVAC, which did not find any materials to proceed against Palaniswami, was not unreasonable to necessitate another preliminary enquiry afresh. “There is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the first respondent took a volte-face on account of change of government and things started moving in the year 2023. In none of the communications that was placed before this Court, there is even a reference that the earlier preliminary inquiry report is not in conformity with law or that it is unreasonable or that some new materials have cropped up to order for a fresh inquiry. Hence, this Court holds that the preliminary inquiry has been directed to be held afresh only for the reason that the other political party has come into power. The political agenda of an individual or a political party should not be subversive of the rule of law,” the court observed.
Facts:
This petition was disposed of on 12.10.2018 after contest by a learned Single Judge of this Court directing the first respondent to hand over investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and further directing the CBI to conduct the preliminary inquiry within a period of three months. It was made clear in the said order dated 12.10.2018 that if the preliminary inquiry disclosed any cognizable offence, the CBI was further directed to register a case and proceed further in accordance with law. The said order dated 12.10.2018 became the subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1256 and 1257 of 2022. The said criminal appeals, which were filed before the Apex Court by the aggrieved persons namely both the respondents herein, were disposed of by the Apex Court by a common judgment dated 03.8.2022. Pursuant to the said common judgment rendered by the Apex Court, the matter came up for hearing on 06.7.2023, on which date, this Court passed the order. The case was once again posted for hearing on 13.7.2023 and this Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side with respect to the preliminary objection raised by the second respondent regarding the request made by the petitioner for withdrawal of this criminal original petition in view of the subsequent development.
Legal Analysis and Decision:
In the present case, the High Court had earlier allowed the petition filed by former DMK MP RS Bharathi seeking investigation against the former CM and directed the DVAC to handover the investigation to the CBI. When Palaniswami and the DVAC moved separate appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the order and directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh. The Apex Court had noted that the single judge had not even perused the preliminary report that was submitted by the DVAC nor had the court impleaded Palaniswami before transferring investigation to the CBI. Following this, when the High Court took up the matter, the State Public Prosecutor informed the court that the earlier Preliminary report which was submitted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption was rejected by the Vigilance Commissioner and a fresh enquiry had been ordered. Though based on this development, Bharathi submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the petition, the same was objected to by Palaniswami who argued that the Supreme Court had specifically directed the High Court to consider the matter afresh and thus there was no scope for permitting withdrawal. It was also argued by Palaniswami that just because a favourable political climate was prevailing in the State, Bharathi should not be allowed to change his stand. He also requested the court to go through the preliminary report and satisfy itself with the reasons assigned for submitting a closure report.
The court, on perusing the preliminary inquiry report, found that the five allegations made against Palaniswami were independently dealt with and based on materials, the Enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that there was no sufficient and tangible evidence to substantiate the allegations and that there was no favouritism or abuse of public office by Palaniswami. The court noted that this preliminary report was initially accepted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption which was evident from the SLP filed before the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Government had, without assigning any reasons, ordered for a fresh preliminary enquiry. This, according to the court, was only due to a change in the political power in the State.
The court noted that in the present case, the DVAC was an independent body belonging to the Executive organ of the State. However, the only reason why it had taken a different stand and had asked the government regarding action to be taken against Palaniswami was only due to the change in the power dynamics, it added. The court noted that Courts have become playground for political parties to score points. “In cases of this nature, the Court is like a playground where the ruling and opposition party try to score a point for their own political games. Ultimately, the order passed by the Court will only become a subject matter of a talk show in the television channels, which will be discussed with a lot of hue and cry where the participants will scream at the top of their voice supporting one party or the other and ultimately, it will all get consigned to nothing,” the court said. Thus, finding no apparent illegality in the preliminary inquiry report and no reason for conducting another preliminary inquiry afresh, the court dismissed the petition. It further noted that the only appropriate remedy for Bharathi was to approach the Magistrate.
Conclusion:
The Madras High Court yesterday ruled that there is no reason for conducting another preliminary inquiry by Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption against former CM Edappadi K. Palaniswami into an alleged State highway tender scam as the earlier report does not suffer from any apparent illegality or unreasonableness. The court said the fresh inquiry has been ordered against the AIADMK general secretary only due to change of government in the State.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.
