'Barking Up the Wrong Tree': Madras HC Slams Self-Proclaimed Whistleblower's Repeated Bid for CBI Reward

In a sharp rebuke, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition by RTI activist M.J. Sankar seeking to quash a CBI rejection of his reward claim and compel payment of Rs 1.28 lakh for tips on a luxury car smuggling racket. Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira ruled on April 17, 2026, that the CBI has no reward scheme for informers , unlike the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), and chided the petitioner for lacking evidence while filing successive petitions that wasted judicial time.

From Luxury Car Tips to a Decade-Long Reward Chase

The saga traces back to 2008, when Sankar and his father, a luxury car dealer, allegedly tipped off the DRI about Alex C. Joseph's illegal imports from South Africa and Canada. They claimed to identify smuggled cars at a stockyard via recording slips dated March 2008. In 2010, Sankar's father reportedly received a Rs 27,000 "token reward" from the CBI—though Sankar contested this agency's involvement—while eyeing a total Rs 1.55 lakh.

By 2012, Sankar complained to CBI about stalled probes and alleged corruption cover-ups. Between 2012-14, CBI seized 50 cars worth Rs 48.50 crore in evaded customs duty, crediting his initial tip. Yet, balance rewards eluded them. A 2014 DRI letter noted files seized by CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB). After an eight-year lull— "woke up from slumber like Rip Van Winkle," per the court—Sankar wrote to CBI in March 2023. The agency rejected it on May 12 via a letter stating no records linked his info to any CBI case registration.

This led to W.P. (Crl.) No.246 of 2026 under Article 226, challenging the rejection and seeking reward processing. It followed an earlier dismissed petition, W.P. No.30202 of 2024, on a similar May 2023 representation.

Petitioner's Plea: 'Our Tip Led to Massive Seizures'

Appearing party-in-person , Sankar argued his intelligence was pivotal: without it, no Rs 48.50 crore seizure. He cited a 2015 DRI circular on informer rewards, a 2021 CBI request for his testimony in disciplinary proceedings against DRI officials, and claimed the token payment proved entitlement. He disputed factual gaps, insisting on balance dues despite agency distinctions.

CBI's Firm Stand: No Locus, No Scheme

Special Public Prosecutor N. Baaskaran countered that Sankar lacked locus standi to monitor probes, citing the prior dismissal in W.P. No.30202 of 2024. Crucially, CBI operates no reward scheme , rendering claims invalid. No records tied tips to CBI actions, and DRI guidelines don't bind CBI—two distinct entities.

Court's Razor-Sharp Dissection: Evidence Void, Wrong Agency, Res Judicata Shadows

Justice Chandira narrowed the issue: entitlement to Rs 1.28 lakh? Answered in the negative. No slips, guidelines, or proof of 2010 payment surfaced. The 2015 DRI circular was irrelevant; CBI isn't bound. Sankar's 2021 CBI summon was evidentiary, not reward-linked.

Factual errors abounded: a cited 2015 DRI reply was from a junior officer, not ADG M.M. Parthiban. The eight-year delay post-2015 was unexplained. Prior dismissal barred relitigation—identical relief sought, hypertechnical prayer differences aside.

Echoing media reports like The Indian Express , the court branded it " barking up the wrong tree "on" non-existent " CBI guidelines, noting the prior order's finality.

Key Observations

"The CBI does not have any scheme for grant of reward to informers."

"The petitioner is barking up the wrong tree and predicates his claim on a non-existent set of guidelines."

"Though... paid a token reward of Rs.27,000/- in the year 2010, he has not placed before this Court, even a shred of material to substantiate the said stand."

"This Court records its feeling of displeasure... in filing one writ petition after the other seeking the same relief, thereby wasting the judicial time."

Petition Dismissed: A Cautionary Close Without Costs

The writ failed entirely; miscellaneous petition closed. While expressing "displeasure and annoyance," the single-judge bench spared costs, urging the party-in-person to "mend his ways."

This ruling underscores agencies' autonomy on informant rewards—CBI informers can't piggyback DRI schemes—and warns against serial litigation. Future claimants must furnish ironclad proof and target the right door, lest courts echo this "wrong tree" verdict.