'Govt Attempted To Shield Politicians': Madras High Court While Ordering CBI Probe Into Alleged Transformer Tender Scam Involving Senthil Balaji

The High Court noted that in the case, there was a delay in granting sanctions and even when the sanction was granted, it was only against Kasi, Financial Controller at TANGEDCO, and not against others, including the concerned Minister at that time, V Senthil Balaji.

This conduct, as per the court, suggested an attempt by the government and relevant authorities to suppress the truth and created a suspicion of a cover-up to shield high-ranking officials and political figures, which undermined the integrity of a free and fair trial.

“The excessive and unjustified delay in granting permission, coupled with the decision to downgrade the investigation from a detailed enquiry [without registration of an FIR] to a preliminary enquiry and limit its scope solely to Kasi, strongly suggests an attempt by the government and relevant authorities to suppress the truth and these actions create a reasonable suspicion of a cover-up designed to shield high-ranking officials and political figures, thereby undermining the integrity of a free, independent, and fair investigation,” the court said.

The court further noted that though in cases involving corruption the investigating agency was expected to conduct a preliminary enquiry before registration of FIR, in the present case, the DVAC had conducted a detailed enquiry and conducted a mini-trial.

“In a 73-Page preliminary enquiry report, the DVAC holds that there is insufficient oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations against Kasi and further action is dropped. Under the guise of preliminary enquiry, the DVAC ex facie appears to have conducted a detailed enquiry. In any event, the scope of a preliminary enquiry is inherently narrow and must not be permitted to escalate into a "mini-trial" prior to the formal registration of an offence,” the court observed.

The court further noted that though the DVAC had sought prior approval to conduct enquiry against the persons involved in the case on January 22, 2024, the Government, on September 26,2025 accorded sanction to conduct preliminary enquiry against only one public servant – Kasi. The court highlighted that as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the timeline for providing prior approval was only three months, which could be maximum extended by one month. The court noted that in the present case, the delay of 20 month for granting approval was unexplained by the authorities and was a serious procedural lapse that could not be overlooked.

The court thus concluded that the procedural integrity of the investigation was compromised and the matter was not handled properly. The court thus noted that the petitioners were justified in approaching the court.

“The nearly 20-month delay in granting approval, left entirely unexplained by the authorities, constitutes a significant procedural lapse that cannot be overlooked or treated as inconsequential. Such a prolonged period of inaction without justification raises serious concerns regarding the legitimacy of the process and must be given substantial weight in evaluating the case. Further, the lack of any justification for failing to initiate action against the other individuals named in the complaint strongly suggests that the matter was handled improperly. This unexplained omission makes it clear that the procedural integrity of the investigation was compromised, indicating that the complaint was not dealt with in a transparent or lawful manner,” the court noted.

Another aspect that was highlighted by the court was that though the NGO Arappor Iyakkam had filed a complaint with the DVAC in 2023, no action had been taken on it and the same was kept pending. However, soon after the petitioners approached the court against the failure to take action on the complaint, all of a sudden, the preliminary enquiry was concluded rendering a finding that there was no material to substantiate the allegations. The court noted that this abrupt haste to conclude the proceedings raised doubts regarding the transparency and impartiality of DVAC's functioning.

“The fact that a complaint languishing for nearly three years was suddenly concluded while the matter was already under final hearing before the court is highly suspicious. This abrupt haste to close the proceedings at such a critical legal juncture further intensifies doubts regarding the transparency and impartial functioning of the DVAC,” the court observed.

The court then went on to observed that the procedure adopted by the State and the DVAC were so heavily marked by unfairness, that they failed to aspire public confidence, creating a necessity for an independent enquiry.

The court also noted that the allegations in the present plea were against persons who were occupying high constitutional and political office in the State. In such circumstances, the court noted that leaving the investigation to agencies functioning under the administrative control of the State would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension in public mind about institutional independence.

The court thus deemed it fit to transfer the probe to the CBI and directed the investigating agency to conduct a de novo investigation.

Counsel for Petitioners: Dr. V.Suresh, Mr. V.Raghavachari Senior Counsel For Mr. A.G.Vedavikas, Mr. J.Senthil Kumaraiah

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. N.R.Elango Senior Counsel For Mr. E.Raj Thilak and Mr. K.M.D.Muhilan Addl. Public Prosecutor, J.Srinivasa Mohan For M/s. TVJ Associates, Mr.V.Karthic, Senior Counsel for Mr.Senthil.S, Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG assisted by Mrs.E.Ranganayaki, AGP, Mr.P.S.Raman Advocate General Assisted By Mr. D.R.Arun Kumar, Standing Counsel

Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v The Director, DVAC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 189

Case No: W.P.No.8166 of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment