Supreme Court Hears PIL Petition Raising Corruption Allegations Against Arunachal Pradesh Govt

The Supreme Court on Thursday pondered on whether to entertain a PIL which raises allegations of corruption regarding certain tenders floated by Arunachal Pradesh government years ago at a belated stage.The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing a Special Leave Petition where the petitioners alleged that contracts were given by the state government of Arunachal Pradesh without floating any tender. The former Chief Minister of the state and beneficiary contractor were parties in the original SLP. An Interlocutory Application was also filed impleading the present CM as Respondent.When the matter was taken, Justice Bose pointed out that there is a considerable time gap between the occurrence of the alleged incidents and the date of the hearing. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner’s organization Voluntary Arunachal Sena, responded by stating that he was seeking orders regarding 165 contracts that were awarded without following proper tender procedures.Justice Trivedi then raised concerns about delay, noting that these allegations were brought on record for the first time in 2019.Advocate Prashant Bhushan posed a vital question to the court: “What is the duty of any court when presented with prima facie evidence of serious wrongdoing by a CM?”Justice Trivedi questioned where the petitioner had been "if he was such a vigilante". Bhushan informed the bench that the petitioner was an organization of monks and said that it had no vested interests. He reiterated the court's duty in dealing with matters involving prima facie evidence of grave wrongdoing. In response, Justice Trivedi said that the litigant's responsibilities must be assessed first before getting into Court's duty. Ex facie case of corruption: Contracts awarded without tender by CM to his companies argued Petitioner“I am on a larger issue. Let's assume the applicant is a crook/bogus. Now he has brought to the court evidence of actual contracts issued by govt of which CM is a minister to a company that belongs to him. The duty of the court is not to dismiss this fellow. Duty is to appoint amicus, discharge petitioner", Bhushan urged.Justice Bela Trivedi questioned, “That doesn't mean you'll come to the court at any time?”He emphasized that in a PIL, the important thing is whether there is evidence of grave wrongdoing.Justice Bela Trivedi raised concern asking “Time gap has also to be seen? Let officers do some important work?He countered “What can be more important than ex facie corruption? Without tender how can you award a contract?”He further pointed out that there are established codes of conduct for ministers, which prohibit them from allowing their family members to be involved in government contracts.Meanwhile, the counsel representing the state argued that the beneficiary of the contracts, as well as the former CM had passed away. Therefore, the SLP had abated against him.Advocate Prashant Bhushan pointed out that “so far as IA is concerned, facts are against the present CM. He owned a company and transferred it to his wife in 2012. 165 contracts were given without tender by the state government”.He asserted that when the matter is of grave concern, IA can also be treated as a writ petition. When courts take up matters suo moto or letter petitions as PIL, the court’s powers are wide enough.The bench asked, “Shouldn't you go to HC?”Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that “HC says it doesn't matter whether the tender was issued or not. 4 companies came forward and gave quotations. How did they come forward? They were brought by CM. In this matter, we've filed the contracts. this is ex facie corruption case.”Disturbing trend of PILs being withdrawn due to undue pressure in last 10 years lamented PetitionerAdvocate Prashant Bhushan went on to allege that “for rice worth 10 crore you spent 69 crore in transportation?”"My conscience is aroused, and the court's conscience should also be aroused. the state's finances are being plundered", he emhpasised.Drawing attention to a disturbing trend in PILs over the last 10 years, Advocate Prashant Bhushan expressed concern that petitions with evidence of grave wrongdoing were often withdrawn due to external pressures or technicalities.He firmly argued that, in cases where evidence of wrongdoing has been presented, an amicus should be appointed, and a thorough investigation should be conducted against the sitting CM. He urged the court not to get lost in technicalities but to address the gravity of the allegations.He further emphasized that the court was entitled to treat the Interlocutory Application (IA) as a Writ Petition (WP) in cases of serious concern. He submitted that “we've come up with irrefutable documents against the present CM. His increase in income is phenomenal- he's the 2nd richest CM in the country”Justice Bose posed the question “whether these expenditures are audited or not?”Senior Advocate Vikas Singh(Appearing for present...

Supreme Court Hears PIL Petition Raising Corruption Allegations Against Arunachal Pradesh Govt

Suraj Parmar

Tags