Back
Observes 'Almost Impossible' to Register Corruption Cases Against Powerful Figures
The ’s recent oral observations during a have laid bare a systemic hurdle that civil society and the judiciary themselves face in pursuing corruption allegations against the influential. While hearing a petition filed by the NGO over the protracted delay in obtaining to prosecute two IAS officers in a tender irregularities case involving former minister SP Velumani, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh expressed deep frustration at the near impossibility of registering corruption cases against powerful individuals in the country.
“How difficult it is to register corruption cases against powerful people in this country? A judge sitting in this court is trying and trying. If there were no public-spirited persons or judges, there would not be any corruption cases against anyone in this country. Everyone will be a holy cow,” the court remarked, highlighting a simmering judicial discontent with the sluggish pace of anti-corruption mechanisms.
The case, which has been pending since the filing of an by the in , centres on alleged irregularities amounting to ₹98.25 crore in the award of road contracts by the between and . Velumani, who served as the Minister for Municipal Administration and Water Supply, is accused of abusing his official position to favour relatives and close associates in the tendering process.
A Frustrated Bench
The was filed after the DVAC failed to comply with earlier directions to file a in the . Although the DVAC eventually submitted the report, the court was informed that under the to prosecute two IAS officers—KS Kandasamy and K Vijayakarthikeyan—was still pending approval from the Union government.
During hearings, it emerged that the proposal had been sent to New Delhi in , and clarifications requested by the , Public Grievances and Pensions were provided by . Yet, the files remained stuck. The court was also told that the concerned officers had requested a personal hearing, and further delay occurred because the municipal administration was preoccupied with election work.
Unimpressed by these explanations, the court impleaded the Secretary to the and later the Under Secretary in the , seeking a status report on the proposal. The court’s pointed questions reflected its growing impatience: “I think we've reached a point where Indians are not much agitated about corruption. On the one hand we're saying we're against corruption. And on another all this is happening. What are they doing with the files? Isn't there a time limit for dealing with files against corruption?”
The Velumani Case
The genesis of the case lies in a complaint by , which led the DVAC to register an under , and . When some of the companies involved approached the High Court to , the court refused and directed the DVAC to file a after obtaining the necessary . That direction gave rise to the .
Justice Venkatesh noted that the case pertained to alleged corruption between and , and the DVAC should have handled it with “alacrity” and brought it to a close at the earliest. The court’s previous criticism of the DVAC for delays in obtaining from the Union government underscored a systemic bottleneck that often stalls proceedings against senior bureaucrats and politicians.
Saga
The requirement of under is a safeguard designed to prevent frivolous prosecutions of public servants. However, as this case illustrates, the process can become a tool for indefinite delay, especially when the accused hold considerable political or administrative clout. The court’s decision to implead the Union Ministry directly reflects its determination to pierce the bureaucratic opacity that had enveloped the file for months.
The NGO’s counsel argued that the delay was egregious and that the lack of any for granting or refusing enabled the executive to keep files pending indefinitely. The court’s remarks implicitly endorsed this concern, questioning why there was no prescribed timeline for dealing with corruption-related files.
Judicial Observations and Public Faith
Justice Venkatesh’s observations strike at the heart of the public’s waning faith in anti-corruption mechanisms. By stating that “everyone will be a holy cow” in the absence of public-spirited persons or judges, the court acknowledged that the system, left to itself, tends to protect the powerful. This judicial candor is rare and underscores the frustration of trial and appellate courts that see cases languishing due to executive inaction.
The remarks also highlight the indispensable role of civil society and the media in keeping corruption cases alive. Without persistent petitioners like , and without judges willing to call out delays, many cases would likely never see the light of day.
Broader Implications for Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this case serves as a stark reminder of the procedural hurdles inherent in corruption litigation. The requirement, while constitutionally valid, can be weaponised to stymie proceedings. The court’s willingness to implead senior officials from the Union Ministry may set a precedent for other cases where delays are used to frustrate justice.
Moreover, the High Court’s comments could prompt the legislature to consider introducing time limits for decisions, as recommended by various law commissions. The case also reinforces the importance of as a tool to enforce compliance with judicial directions in anti-corruption matters.
Conclusion
The ’s candid observations in the have once again brought to the fore the systemic inertia that plagues corruption prosecutions against powerful individuals. As the court continues to monitor the file, the legal community will watch closely to see whether the executive branch responds with alacrity or further delay. The episode underscores a fundamental truth: without persistent judicial oversight and civil society activism, the fight against corruption in India remains an uphill battle.
