Supreme Court Sets Final Deadline for Centre's Response in Arunachal CM Nepotism Case

New Delhi – The Supreme Court of India has issued a peremptory order, granting the Union of India a final, non-extendable period of three weeks to file its counter-affidavit in a significant Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging rampant nepotism and corruption in the allotment of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh. The petition targets companies linked to the state's Chief Minister, Pema Khandu, and his family.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the firm directive after noting the central government's failure to comply with a previous order from March 2025. The case, which questions the very integrity of the state's public procurement process, has put both the state administration and central ministries under judicial scrutiny.

The Court's Unyielding Stance

During a pointed hearing, the bench expressed its impatience with the delay from the central government. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners—NGOs Save Mon Region Federation and Voluntary Arunachal Sena—highlighted that while the State of Arunachal Pradesh had submitted its affidavit as directed, the Union of India, specifically the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Finance, had not.

"Union of India prays for and is granted 3 weeks and no more time to file the affidavit," the bench unequivocally ordered, signalling an end to procedural delays.

The court also dismissed technical objections raised during the proceedings. When a counsel suggested that the Ministry of Finance needed to be formally impleaded, the bench retorted sharply, emphasizing the clarity of its previous directive. "Don't tell us all these technicalities. There is a specific direction that the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance shall also file an affidavit. That is more than enough to file an affidavit," the bench remarked, underscoring that its orders were substantive and not to be sidestepped by procedural maneuvering.

The gravity of the matter was further underscored by the presence of Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, whose attendance was noted by Justice Mehta.

Grave Allegations at the Heart of the PIL

The PIL, filed in early 2024, presents a damning picture of the state's governance. The petitioners allege a systemic pattern of awarding lucrative public works contracts to companies directly owned by or closely associated with Chief Minister Pema Khandu's family. The petition paints a picture of a state apparatus being leveraged for private enrichment, a sentiment captured in Advocate Bhushan’s stark submission to the court: "Pema Khandu is running the state like his private limited company."

The petition specifically names several entities and individuals:

• M/s Brand Eagles: A construction company allegedly owned by the Chief Minister's spouse. The petitioners claim this firm has received a large number of government contracts, creating a clear conflict of interest.
• Tsering Tashi: Identified as the Chief Minister's nephew and a sitting MLA from Tawang District. His company, M/s Alliance Trading Co. , is also alleged to have been awarded numerous contracts without adherence to due process, potentially in violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• Rinchin Drema: The second wife of the late Dorjee Khandu (Pema Khandu's father and former Chief Minister), has also been impleaded as a party in the case.

The petitioners contend that the scale and pattern of these contract awards "could not have been possible without direct knowledge, consent, and active support of the minister concerned." The PIL seeks a thorough and impartial investigation by either the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT).

Judicial Scrutiny and the Role of Central Bodies

The Supreme Court had first issued notice in the matter in January 2024. By March 2025, the court had intensified its scrutiny, demanding detailed responses from multiple authorities. In its March order, the bench, then headed by then-Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, directed the Arunachal Pradesh government, the MHA, the Ministry of Finance, and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) to file comprehensive reports.

The state was explicitly asked to detail the parties to whom contracts were awarded and to clarify if any were related to CM Khandu or his family. The central ministries were tasked with providing their own detailed affidavits on the matter, including the procurement processes followed. The court had then remarked, "We must have a clear cut answer and who are the parties to whom the contract is awarded and what is the process. If tenders were not called for, it must be stated."

This multi-pronged directive aimed to create a complete factual matrix for the court to assess the allegations. The Union's failure to respond has now become a central issue, prompting the court's latest ultimatum.

Broader Legal and Ethical Implications

The case revives critical questions about the enforcement of ethical standards for public office-holders. During the March hearing, the bench had referenced a report by the CAG in a separate case involving Pema Khandu's late father, Dorjee Khandu, who faced similar allegations. That report cited the Code of Conduct for Ministers, laid down by the MHA, which explicitly prohibits ministers from using their office to provide undue advantage to relatives.

This Code of Conduct, though not a statute, serves as a foundational ethical guideline for ministerial conduct. The Supreme Court's reference to it signals a potential examination of whether the alleged actions of CM Khandu constitute a breach of this high constitutional standard. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the jurisprudence surrounding conflict of interest, ministerial propriety, and the legal enforceability of such codes.

As the three-week deadline for the Centre's response begins, the legal community will be watching closely. The Union's affidavit is expected not only to respond to the petitioner's claims but also to address the findings in the state government's submission and the CAG's report. The court's insistence on a "clear cut answer" places the onus on the central government to take a definitive stand on a sensitive issue of alleged corruption within a state government. The case, Save Mon Region Federation And Anr v. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And Ors. , is poised to become a landmark in the continuing struggle for transparency and accountability in public life.