Madras High Court
R. Rajeshkanna vs The Superintendent Of Police on 8 July, 2026
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
2026:MHC:3178
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 31.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
WP CRL.(MD)No.1108 of 2025
R.Rajesh Kanna
... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.293, MKN Road,
Alandur,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.576/4, EB Colony,
Chettinayakkanpatty,
Trichy By-pass Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.576/4, EB Colony,
Chettinayakkanpatty,
Trichy By-pass Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
1/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
4.The Superintendent of Police,
CBI / ACB, Madurai, Madurai Zone,
73, Athikulam Main Road,
Reserve Line Post,
Madurai.
5.Suguna
6.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Chennai.
7.The Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
... Respondents
[R.6 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 03.07.2026]
[R.7 suo-motu impleaded vide order dated 31.07.2026]
PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the pending Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Complaint dated 14.07.2025 lodged by the petitioner as against the fifth
respondent and subsequent representation dated 13.08.2025 to the fourth
respondent.
2/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.John Sathyan,
State Public Prosecutor
for R.1 to R.3
Mr.M.Karunanidhi,
Special Public Prosecutor for R.4
Mr.A.Balaji for R.5
Mr.B.Saravanan,
Additional Advocate General
Assisted by
Mr.S.Siva Subramanian,
Government Advocate (Civil Side)
for R.6 & R.7
*****
ORDER
The petitioner, claiming to be a trader, has filed this writ petition
alleging that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, in order to
shield the fifth respondent, failed to act upon his complaint dated
14.07.2025. He, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus directing transfer of
the said complaint, which is presently with the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department, to the fourth respondent / CBI.
3/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
purchased 13,430 kgs. of broken rice, loaded the same in a vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN 59 AE 6852 driven by one Karnan and
dispatched it to Suresh Poultry Farm, Namakkal. The consignment was
accompanied by a Bill of Supply (Invoice No.73) indicating that only
broken rice was being transported. It is submitted that the said
consignment was intercepted by the fifth respondent / Inspector of
Police, CSCID, along with her team at Kodai Road at about 12.30 am.
Thereafter, the fifth respondent registered a case in Crime No.157 of 2025
at 04.00 pm on 11.07.2025 for the offences under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the
Essential Commodities Act and Section 6(4) of the Essential
Commodities (RCDS) Order, 1982, alleging that 1,000 kgs. of PDS rice
had been concealed amidst 13,000 kgs. of broken rice and unlawfully
transported. The case was initially registered against the mill owner, the
driver of the vehicle and the proposed purchaser of the goods, namely,
Suresh of Namakkal. According to the petitioner, upon being informed
by Suresh, he contacted the fifth respondent at 05.37 pm and explained
4/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
that all the documents were in order and that only broken rice was being
transported. It is further submitted that, at 05.40 pm, the fifth respondent
called the petitioner and demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs for not arraying
him as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025. Thereafter, on 12.07.2025 at
about 01.38 pm, she allegedly asked the petitioner to meet her on
14.07.2025.
3.Learned Counsel further submitted that, without yielding to the
demand, the petitioner approached the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department, Dindigul, on 14.07.2025 and informed the authorities about
the demand made by the fifth respondent. The second respondent
instructed the petitioner to meet the fifth respondent, provided him with
an audio recording device to record the alleged demand and deputed
one Head Constable, Senthilkumar, to accompany him.
4.It is submitted that the petitioner met the fifth respondent at
about 03.45 pm on 14.07.2025 near Perumal Temple, Ramayanapatty
Road. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent once again
5/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
demanded illegal gratification and insisted that at least Rs.3 lakhs be
paid, stating that the amount had to be shared with higher officials. The
petitioner is stated to have agreed to pay Rs.1 lakh on 15.07.2025 and the
balance of Rs.2 lakhs thereafter. The entire conversation was allegedly
recorded both in the audio recording device supplied by the Vigilance
Department and in the petitioner’s mobile phone. The recording device
was handed over to Head Constable Senthilkumar on the evening of
14.07.2025.
5.According to the learned Counsel, the second respondent
informed the petitioner that a trap would be arranged on 15.07.2025.
Accordingly, the petitioner arranged the amount and handed it over to
the Vigilance officials on the morning of 15.07.2025, whereupon the
currency note numbers were noted down by the second and third
respondents. However, no trap was conducted on that day. Instead, the
petitioner was sent back with an assurance that appropriate action
would be taken based on the instructions of the higher authorities. Since
no action was taken on his complaint, the petitioner submitted a
6/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
representation dated 13.08.2025 to the first respondent requesting action
against the fifth respondent. However, no action was taken thereon.
6.It is the contention of the petitioner’s Counsel that the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Department deliberately refrained from conducting
the trap in order to protect the fifth respondent and, instead, proceeded
to array the petitioner as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 19.08.2025
seeking transfer of the investigation into his complaint to the CBI.
7.This Court, while entertaining the writ petition on 26.08.2025,
directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department to file its
counter affidavit on or before 29.08.2025. However, the writ petition was
not listed thereafter and, during the interregnum, no counter affidavit
was filed for nearly a year. It was only pursuant to the specific directions
issued by this Court on 12.06.2026 that the first respondent /
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department,
filed a counter affidavit on 19.06.2026.
7/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
8.Learned State Counsel appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department, by placing reliance upon the counter affidavit
filed by the first respondent, submitted that the petitioner approached
the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, Dindigul, on 14.07.2025
and orally alleged that the fifth respondent had demanded illegal
gratification for not arraying him as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025.
He further submitted that the petitioner admitted to having paid a
monthly mamool of Rs.15,000/- to the fifth respondent and produced
screenshots in support thereof. The petitioner was therefore instructed to
meet the fifth respondent on the afternoon of 14.07.2025 and was
provided with an audio recording device to record the alleged demand.
Upon verification of the recording, it was found that the petitioner had
attempted to induce the fifth respondent not to array him as an accused
and that both of them were conversing casually regarding the payment
of monthly mamool. In view of the same, it was considered necessary to
verify the motives, reliability and antecedents of the petitioner in terms
of Paragraph 42(2) of the Vigilance Manual. Accordingly, the petitioner’s
8/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
complaint was reduced into writing on 15.07.2025 and forwarded to the
Director.
9.He further submitted that the complaint was forwarded for
factual verification on 19.08.2025, which was completed on 25.08.2025,
whereupon a recommendation was made to conduct a Detailed Enquiry.
On 12.09.2025, the Vigilance Commissioner accorded permission to
obtain prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, and such approval was obtained on 17.11.2025. Thereafter, a
Detailed Enquiry was registered on 28.11.2025 by the Inspector of Police,
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Dindigul. Upon completion of the
enquiry on 15.06.2026, it was recommended that charges under Section
7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be initiated against the
fifth respondent and charges under Sections 8 and 10 read with Section 9
of the Act be initiated against the petitioner.
10.According to him, the petitioner was previously involved in a
similar case and was arrayed as Accused No.2 in Spl.C.C.No.854 of 2023.
9/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
That apart, a final report in Crime No.157 of 2025 (C.C.No.1278 of 2025)
was filed on 05.12.2025 arraigning six persons as accused, including the
petitioner. The bank records and the screenshots produced by the
petitioner himself revealed that he had been paying a monthly mamool
of Rs.15,000/- to the fifth respondent through her mother-in-law, one
Dhanalakshmi. During the Detailed Enquiry, the fifth respondent also
admitted to the receipt of the said amounts through her mother-in-law.
Since the enquiry disclosed a continuing pattern of giving and receiving
illegal gratification between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, apart
from the demand allegedly made for not arraying the petitioner as an
accused in Crime No.157 of 2025, a recommendation was made to
register appropriate cases against both of them. According to the learned
State Counsel, the present writ petition has been filed only to thwart the
proceedings initiated pursuant to the Detailed Enquiry. Therefore, he
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
11.The fifth respondent has also entered appearance. The learned
Counsel appearing for the fifth respondent submitted that the allegations
10/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
levelled by the petitioner are false, vexatious and malicious. According
to him, a lawful inspection was conducted by the fifth respondent and
the Civil Supplies Flying Squad on 11.07.2025 in respect of the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TN 59 AE 6852, during which it was found that
1,000 kgs. of PDS rice had been concealed amidst 13,000 kgs. of broken
rice and was being unlawfully transported. Consequently, Crime No.157
of 2025 was initially registered against three accused persons and, upon
completion of the investigation, the petitioner was also arrayed as an
accused in the final report. According to him, the petitioner was an
active participant in a well-organised network engaged in the
procurement, storage and diversion of PDS rice for unlawful commercial
gain. Having been arrayed as an accused in C.C.No.1278 of 2025 arising
out of Crime No.157 of 2025, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition and levelled allegations against the fifth respondent solely with
a view to derail the proceedings initiated against him.
12.Having regard to the nature of the allegations made in the writ
petition, this Court directed the production of the records relating to
11/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
D.E.No.119/2025/POL/DL. The said records were produced and have
been carefully perused by this Court.
13.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties
and perused the materials placed on record.
14.The petitioner claims that he is engaged in the business of
trading broken rice, besides carrying on other businesses. It is his specific
case that he lodged a complaint before the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department, Dindigul, on 14.07.2025 alleging that the fifth
respondent had intercepted a truck transporting broken rice under a
valid Bill of Supply on 11.07.2025, falsely registered Crime No.157 of
2025 as though PDS rice was being unlawfully transported in the vehicle,
and demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from him for not arraying him as an
accused in the said case.
15.Though the petitioner asserts that he had submitted a written
complaint on 14.07.2025 itself, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
12/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
Department has taken a stand that he had only made oral allegations on
that day. Even assuming that such a stand is correct, the oral complaint
ought to have been immediately reduced into writing in terms of
Paragraph 44(1) of the Vigilance Manual, since it disclosed allegations of
demand of illegal gratification by a public servant. Strangely, this
mandatory procedure was not followed by the second and third
respondents. Instead, they chose to proceed on the basis of another
written complaint obtained from the petitioner on 15.07.2025.
16.The admitted facts that transpired thereafter assume
considerable significance. Acting upon the instructions of the second
respondent, the petitioner met the fifth respondent on the afternoon of
14.07.2025 carrying an audio recording device supplied by the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Department. The conversation between them,
during which the fifth respondent is alleged to have reduced her
demand from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs, was recorded in the device in the
presence of an officer of the Vigilance Department and was thereafter
handed over to the Department. The petitioner has further stated that he
13/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
arranged a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards the trap proceedings and produced
the same along with his written complaint dated 15.07.2025. Thus, by
15.07.2025, the Vigilance Department was in possession of the complaint,
the audio recording allegedly evidencing the demand and the proposed
trap amount.
17.Despite the above materials, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department chose not to lay the trap. The explanation now offered is
that verification undertaken under Paragraph 42(2) of the Vigilance
Manual revealed that the petitioner had antecedents, including a
previous case under the Essential Commodities Act, and that the
conversation recorded in the audio device reflected payment of monthly
mamool. On that basis, the Department concluded that the petitioner
lacked credibility and decided not to proceed with the trap.
18.This explanation does not merit acceptance. In fact, this Court is
shocked by the approach adopted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department. It is the admitted case of the Department itself that the
14/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
petitioner had disclosed, even on 14.07.2025, that he had been paying a
monthly mamool of Rs.15,000/- to the fifth respondent and had produced
screenshots in support thereof. Therefore, the Department was fully
aware of the petitioner’s antecedents even before it instructed him to
meet the fifth respondent. Notwithstanding such knowledge, the
Department considered the complaint credible enough to supply a
recording device, direct the petitioner to meet the fifth respondent and
monitor the conversation. After the alleged demand had been recorded
and after the petitioner had arranged the trap amount, the Department
abruptly abandoned the trap on the very ground which was admittedly
known to it from the inception. Such an explanation is wholly untenable.
19.The petitioner may have been paying the mamool to the fifth
respondent. The fifth respondent officer is vested with the power of
registering a case under the Essential Commodities Act. The available
audio recording produced before this Court discloses the manner in
which the fifth respondent has demanded money for not registering a
case. If the attitude of the officers are like this, then even a genuine
15/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
person cannot do business without paying any illegal gratification.
Every citizen of this State knows very well that corruption is deep rooted
and it has became an order of the day. It is expected that the Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption Department would also be aware of the same.
While so, the Vigilance Department has to focus on ensuring integrity of
the government officers, instead of analysing the integrity of the
complainant. If the complainant is also a bribe giver, necessary action
has to be initiated, but the same cannot be done by avoiding action as
against an official, who openly demanded bribe for not registering a
case.
20.The factual materials available with the Vigilance Department
on 14.07.2025 and 15.07.2025 were, therefore, of considerable importance.
Crime No.157 of 2025 had already been registered by the fifth
respondent on 11.07.2025. The petitioner was admittedly the sender of
the goods seized in the said crime. He claimed that the consignment was
supported by valid documents. The fifth respondent has not added him
as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025 until she was the Investigating
16/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
Officer in the case. The fifth respondent has went to Namakkal in her
private vehicle, is said to have demanded money from the consignee and
has called the petitioner over phone and demanded bribe. She has met
the petitioner near a temple, away from her office, had a discussion
regarding demand of bribe of Rs.5 lakhs, the same was bargained and
reduced to Rs.3 lakhs. This conversation was recorded in the device,
provided by the Vigilance Department. The petitioner was accompanied
to the meeting place along with a Head Constable from the Vigilance
Department. The very conduct of the fifth respondent in blatantly
dealing with a proposed accused in a private place can be ascertained
from the officer of the Department, who accompanied the petitioner on
14.07.2025. Apart from the same, the recording of the conversation was
also available with the Vigilance Department.
21.The complaint of the petitioner dated 15.07.2025 reveals that the
complaint was lodged along with a sum of Rs.1 lakhs. It is well settled
that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua
non for prosecuting a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption
17/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
Act, 1988. Therefore, a trap assumes great significance as it enables the
investigating agency to secure direct and reliable evidence regarding the
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
22.In Som Parkash v. State of Delhi [(1974) 4 SCC 84], Justice
V.R.Krishna Iyer observed that, having regard to the clandestine nature
of bribery, trap proceedings constitute one of the most effective methods
of detecting and proving offences under the Prevention of Corruption
Act. The relevant observations are extracted below:
“6. … Where you intercept the natural course of the corrupt
stream by setting an invisible contraption, its ethics is above board.
On the contrary, to test the moral fibre of an officer whose reputation
is suspect, if you lay a crime “mine” which explodes when he, in a
weak moment, walks on it the whole scheme is tainted. Of course, our
social milieu is so vitiated by a superstitious belief that any official
can be activised by illegal gratification, so confidential is the
technique of give and take in which the white collar offender is adept
and so tough is the forensic problem of proof beyond reasonable doubt
by good testimony in this area, that the only hope of tracking down
the tricky officers is by laying traps and creating statutory
presumptions. Even Kautilya has stated that “just as fish moving18/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not
drinking water so government servants cannot be found out while
taking money. …”
23.In fact, even Paragraph 42 of the Vigilance Manual recognises
the importance of trap proceedings and specifically provides that
successful traps yield both direct and circumstantial evidence capable of
sustaining a prosecution. Therefore, the decision to abandon a trap
cannot be taken lightly and must be supported by exceptional reasons.
However, in this case, the trap was not laid for the reasons best known
to the Vigilance Department. A justification has been made by the
Vigilance Department that they have verified the antecedents of the
petitioner as required in Paragraph 42(2) of the Vigilance Manual. Such
verification is only a matter of precaution and not a ground to abandon
an otherwise legitimate trap. Further, this paragraph does not prevent
the Vigilance Department from laying any trap if the antecedents of the
complainant are bad. Surprisingly, the Vigilance Department has
interpreted the provision in a manner completely contrary to its object
and has used it as a reason to avoid conducting the trap itself.
19/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
24.Had the trap been conducted on 15.07.2025, one of two
consequences would have inevitably followed. Either the allegations
would have stood disproved, thereby exonerating the fifth respondent at
the earliest point of time, or she would have been caught while accepting
or attempting to accept illegal gratification, enabling immediate action in
accordance with law. Instead, by abandoning the trap without any
legally sustainable justification, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department itself created the situation which it later attempted to justify
by invoking Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
subsequent events clearly demonstrate how this initial error set in
motion a chain of avoidable delays.
25.The present case also exposes certain structural deficiencies in
the existing functioning of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
Department. Though every district has a detachment headed by a
Deputy Superintendent of Police assisted by an Inspector of Police, these
officers appear to possess little or no effective decision-making authority.
20/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
Every important step, including factual verification and further course of
action, has to await instructions from the Directorate at Chennai.
Consequently, complaints remain pending at multiple levels without
any officer being personally accountable for the delay. The present case
is a classic illustration of the consequences of such excessive
centralisation.
26.The complaint dated 15.07.2025, despite being accompanied by
the recorded conversation and the proposed trap amount, was merely
forwarded to the Directorate. Even factual verification was not
immediately ordered. It was only after the petitioner approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition on 19.08.2025 seeking transfer of
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation and after this Court
called upon the Vigilance Department to respond, that the Directorate,
on 25.08.2025, completed the factual verification. The available materials
create a presumption that somebody in the Directorate has cautiously
prevented the trap as against the fifth respondent.
21/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
27.The other circumstances leading to this case is also disturbing.
The petitioner has submitted a representation on 13.08.2025 in the form
of a reminder as to the course of action taken on his complaint dated
15.07.2025 to the first respondent. Strangely, within five days of the said
representation, the fifth respondent was repatriated from the Civil
Supplies CID pursuant to the orders of the Inspector General of Police,
Civil Supplies CID, on 18.08.2025. The reasons for such repatriation are
known only to the authorities concerned. Till the fifth respondent was
repatriated from the CSCID, the petitioner has not been shown as an
accused in Crime No.157 of 2025, which was registered on 11.07.2025.
After submitting the representation dated 13.08.2025 to the first
respondent, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 19.08.2025 before
this Court. Considering the serious allegations made by the petitioner
and the factual background, this Court, by its order dated 26.08.2025
directed the Vigilance Department to file their counter affidavit on or
before 29.08.2025. However, the counter affidavit has not been filed by
the Vigilance Department nearly for a period of one year. Instead, they
22/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
have completed factual verification on the complaint of the petitioner
dated 15.07.2025, on 25.08.2025, after a delay of 41 days.
28.The complaint lodged by the petitioner was not a vague or
anonymous complaint warranting prolonged preliminary scrutiny. It
was accompanied by screenshots allegedly evidencing payment of
monthly mamool. More importantly, the Department itself had facilitated
recording of the alleged demand through a recording device supplied by
it. The petitioner had also produced the trap amount. Ordinarily, such
materials would require immediate investigative action. They did not
call for prolonged administrative processing or repeated movement of
files from one authority to another. While so, the complaint of this
petitioner was kept in a cold storage from 15.07.2025 till 19.08.2025. The
available materials disclose a calculative attempt made in the Vigilance
and Anti Corruption Department to protect the fifth respondent Officer,
who demanded bribe from the petitioner, for not adding him as an
accused, in Crime No.157 of 2025.
23/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
29.The factual verification on the complaint of this petitioner
appears to have been completed on 25.08.2025 and a recommendation
was made to conduct a Detailed Enquiry on the complaint of the
petitioner. However, instead of proceeding to that stage without further
delay, the Department embarked upon obtaining prior approval under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This Court is
unable to appreciate how such a course of action was considered
necessary in the facts of the present case.
30.Section 17A was introduced by the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018 to afford protection to honest public servants
against frivolous enquiries in respect of bona fide decisions taken in
discharge of their official duties. The provision was never intended to
operate as a shield against allegations of demand or acceptance of illegal
gratification. The provision is extracted hereunder for easy reference:
“Section 17A:Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences
relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public
servant in discharge of official functions or duties-
(1)No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or
24/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a
public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to
any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant
in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous
approval-
(a)in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time
when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection
with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b)in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time
when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection
with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c)in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to
remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged
to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases
involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or
attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any
other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its
decision under this section within a period of three months, which
may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be
extended by a further period of one month.”25/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
31.The first proviso to Section 17A expressly excludes cases where
a public servant is arrested on the spot while accepting or attempting to
accept an undue advantage. Had the trap been conducted as originally
planned, the question of obtaining prior approval under Section 17A
would not have arisen in the present case. Instead, by abandoning the
trap, the Department itself created a situation to justify a prolonged
delay on the ground that prior approval under Section 17A was
required.
32.Even otherwise, the statute is very clear that prior approval
under Section 17A is required only when the alleged offence is relatable
to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in
the discharge of his or her official functions or duties. In the present case,
the allegations as against the fifth respondent relate to the receipt of
monthly mamool and the demand of bribe, for not adding the petitioner
as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025. Such allegations can never be
treated as acts performed in the discharge of official duties.
26/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
33.The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have clarified the
above position on the requirement of prior permission from the
competent authorities under Section 17A on more than one occasion. The
relevant decisions are enumerated as under for easy understanding:
(1) In Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani and
Another [2023 SCC OnLine SC 427], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that allegations regarding demand of a bribe does not require prior
approval under Section 17A:-
“34. As may be seen, the first proviso to Section 17A refers to
cases wherein a public servant is charged with acceptance of an
undue advantage or attempt thereof. A prior approval or sanction to
investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very
purpose of trap and the investigation, which is not the underlying
intention of the legislature. The investigation against Respondent No.
1, being an accused of demanding a bribe, did not require any
previous approval of the Central Government. That apart, the
accusation against Respondent No. 1 does not revolve around any
recommendations made or decisions taken by him in his quasi-judicial
or administrative capacity.”27/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025(2) The above position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan [2026 INSC 72], wherein
it has been categorically held that prior approval under Section 17A has
no application to cases involving demand of illegal gratification. The
relevant observations are extracted below:-
“7.The entire submission of the learned counsel is thoroughly
misconceived. Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular
object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of
offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by
public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 17-
A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand
of illegal gratification.”(3) In K. Athinarayanan v. The State, represented by Additional
Chief Secretary to Government [WP(MD) No. 34197 of 2025 dated
20.02.2026], a Division Bench of this Court, comprising of Manindra
Mohan Shrivastava, J., (then Chief Justice of this Court) and Arul
Murugan, J., has held that where the information received by the
investigating agency discloses commission of cognizable offence, the
28/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025registration of an FIR is mandatory and the credibility or worthiness of
such information cannot be tested at that stage:-
“33. The judicial pronouncements, as discussed above in
extenso, clearly rule that where the information discloses commission
of a cognizable offence, registration of FIR is must and that, at that
stage, the credibility or worthiness of the information cannot be
tested. Moreover, it has also been held that it is enough if the Police
Officer, on the basis of the information, suspects the commission of a
cognizable offence, and not that he must be convinced or satisfied that
a cognizable offence has been committed.”(4) In Dhandapani v. Vigilance Commissioner [W.A.(MD)No.903 of
2021 dated 30.04.2021], a Division Bench of this Court has held that
when the act of a public servant amounts to or constitutes an offence by
itself, prior sanction or approval from the Government would not be
necessary:-
“9.In the case on hand, the complaint is not during discharge of
his official duties. The First Information Report also registered for
disproportionate assets.
10. The learned Single Judge of this Court has referred to the
decisions of the Delhi High Court and Chhattisgarh High Court29/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025reported in 2019 (1) Crimes (HC) 726 (Devender Kumar Vs. CBI
and (2020) 0 Supreme (CHH) 149, Sathish Pandey vs. Union of
India, has specifically held that Section 17(A) of Prevention of
Corruption Act cannot be made applicable to those cases where the
act of the public servant that amounts to an offence, appears on the
face of it lacking in good faith. Considering the above provision and
the above decision, it is clear that Section 17 (A) has been inserted
only to give protection to the honest officers, but when the act of a
public servant amounts to or constitutes an offence by itself, prior
sanction or approval from the Government would not be necessary.
Viewing from this angle also, I hold that Section 17 (A) of Prevention
of Corruption Act has no application to the case on hand. As already
pointed out, since FIR has already been registered and is pending
investigation, the relief sought for by the petitioner has become
infructuous.
11. In the case of Ranjib Ranjan Vs. R.Vijayakumar, reported
in 2015(1)SSC 513, the Apex Court held that in paragraph No.18,
“while discharging his official duties, if a public servant enters into a
criminal conspiracy or indulges criminal misconduct such
misdemeanour on his part is not to be treated as an act in discharging
of his official duties”.”
30/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
(5) In CBI v. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi [(2021) 18 SCC
135], a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, headed by Dr.Justice
D.Y.Chandrachud [then Chief Justice of India], held that preliminary
enquiry was not required in all corruption cases and if the information
received discloses the commission of a cognizable offence at the outset,
no preliminary enquiry would be required:-
“39. The precedents of this Court and the provisions of the CBI
Manual make it abundantly clear that a preliminary enquiry is not
mandatory in all cases which involve allegations of corruption. The
decision of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari
v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] holds that
if the information received discloses the commission of a cognizable
offence at the outset, no preliminary enquiry would be required. It
also clarified that the scope of a preliminary enquiry is not to check
the veracity of the information received, but only to scrutinise
whether it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. Similarly,
Para 9.1 of the CBI Manual notes that a preliminary enquiry is
required only if the information (whether verified or unverified) does
not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. Even when a
preliminary enquiry is initiated, it has to stop as soon as the officer
ascertains that enough material has been collected which discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence. A similar conclusion has been31/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025reached by a two-Judge Bench in Managipet [State of Telangana v.
Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] as well.
Hence, the proposition that a preliminary enquiry is mandatory is
plainly contrary to law, for it is not only contrary to the decision of
the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari [Lalita Kumari v. State of
U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] but would also tear
apart the framework created by the CBI Manual.”
34.Therefore, the legal position is very clear that prior permission
under Section 17A is required only when the alleged offence is relatable
to the recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant in
discharge of official functions or duties. In matters such as demand for
illegal gratification or accumulation of disproportionate assets, there is
no requirement of prior approval under Section 17A. Therefore, this
Court fails to understand how the authorities proceeded on the
assumption that prior approval under Section 17A was necessary.
35.The Government vide G.O.Ms.No.173, P & AR Department,
dated 09.12.2018, laid down certain guidelines in processing the
complaints of alleged corruption against public servants, pursuant to the
32/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025incorporation of Section 17A(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Even as per the procedure laid out under this government order,
prior permission under Section 17A is required from the competent
authority, only in cases where the alleged offence is relatable to any
recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in
discharge of his official functions or duties.
36.This is a case wherein prior permission under Section 17A was
not required in the first place. However, based on this factual
verification report, the Directorate has made a request to the Vigilance
Commissioner for further course of action on 26.08.2025. It is not known
why the Vigilance Commissioner’s advice has been sought for
prosecuting an Inspector of Police, who has demanded bribe for adding
the petitioner as an accused in Crime No.157 of 2025. A request has been
made in this regard to the Vigilance Commissioner on 26.08.2025 and a
decision has been taken by the Vigilance Commissioner for proceeding
to get prior permission from the concerned Department only on
12.09.2025. Neither the proposal nor the permission granted discloses
33/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
any independent examination as to whether Section 17A was at all
attracted to the facts of the present case. The Vigilance Commissioner
took 17 days in processing the request and granting permission. Neither
in the Prevention of Corruption Act nor in the Vigilance Manual, such a
procedure has been prescribed.
37.Thereafter, another mechanical exercise followed. A request
seeking prior approval under Section 17A was forwarded to the
Inspector General of Police, Civil Supplies CID, on 22.09.2025. By
communication dated 09.10.2025, the Inspector General informed the
Vigilance Department that since the fifth respondent had been
repatriated, he was not the competent authority to accord such approval.
The allegations against the fifth respondent relate to the period during
which she was serving in the Civil Supplies CID. Therefore, the
competent authority could only be the authority under whom she was
serving when the alleged offences were committed. Her subsequent
transfer could not have altered the identity of the competent authority.
Instead of examining this elementary aspect, the Inspector General
34/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
simply passed the buck onto another authority. The Vigilance
Department, without raising any objection, forwarded the proposal to
the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tiruchirappalli, on 17.10.2025,
who granted prior permission only on 17.11.2025. Only thereafter did the
Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, direct registration
of a Detailed Enquiry against the fifth respondent on 24.11.2025, which
ultimately came to be registered on 28.11.2025.
38.The shortcomings noticed by this Court in the handling of the
petitioner’s complaint are summarised as follows:-
● Failure to reduce the petitioner’s oral complaint dated 14.07.2025
into writing in accordance with Paragraph 44(1) of the Vigilance
Manual.
● Despite being aware from the very inception that the petitioner
claimed to have been paying monthly mamool to the fifth
respondent, supplying him with a recording device, deputing a
Vigilance Officer to accompany him, facilitating the recording of
the alleged demand, and thereafter abandoning the proposed trap
35/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025on the very same ground.
● Ignoring the audio recording allegedly containing the demand,
though it was secured under the supervision of the Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption Department itself.
● Abandoning the proposed trap despite the availability of the
complaint, the recorded conversation allegedly evidencing the
demand and the trap amount produced by the petitioner.
● Treating the antecedents of the complainant as a ground to
abandon the trap, contrary to the object of Paragraph 42(2) of the
Vigilance Manual.
● Failure to take any other investigative steps, such as, collecting the
CDR particulars, despite the fact that the fifth respondent met the
petitioner in a private place and openly demanded bribe not to
register the case.
● Keeping the petitioner’s complaint pending without any
meaningful progress until he approached this Court.
● The fifth respondent being repatriated from the Civil Supplies CID
immediately after the petitioner submitted a representation
36/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025seeking action on his complaint, while the complaint itself
remained unattended.
● Completing the factual verification only after the filing of the writ
petition and pursuant to the intervention of this Court.
● Abandoning the trap and giving room to invoke Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, thereby delaying the process
of Detailed Enquiry.
● Invoking Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
even though the allegations relate to demand of illegal gratification
and not to any recommendation made or decision taken in the
discharge of the official functions or duties.
● Accepting the stand of the Inspector General of Police, Civil
Supplies CID, regarding competency to accord approval under
Section 17A, without examining the correctness of such a stand.
● Allowing the proposal under Section 17A to move from one
authority to another, resulting in avoidable administrative delay.
The above sequence of events reveals either a lack of application of mind
or a deliberate attempt to safeguard the fifth respondent.
37/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
39.Ultimately, pending this writ petition, the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department has completed the Detailed Enquiry and
recommended initiation of proceedings under Section 7(b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the fifth respondent and
under Sections 8 and 10 read with Section 9 of the said Act against the
petitioner. Thus, though belatedly, the Department has ultimately
reached the conclusion that sufficient materials exist for proceeding
against both the alleged recipient and the alleged giver of illegal
gratification.
40.This Court has repeatedly observed that corruption is not
merely an offence against an individual complainant. It strikes at the
very foundation of public administration and erodes the confidence of
citizens in the fairness of governance. Every allegation of demand of
illegal gratification deserves prompt, professional and fearless
investigation. Delay in such matters is not a mere procedural
irregularity. Time invariably works in favour of the corrupt. Every day’s
38/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
delay increases the possibility of destruction of evidence, influencing of
witnesses and obliteration of the trail of illegal gratification.
41.In the present case, the investigation has already progressed
beyond the stage at which transfer to another agency would serve any
useful purpose. The Detailed Enquiry has concluded and the
Department has recommended registration of a regular case. In these
circumstances, transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation would only result in duplication of effort, further delay
and commencement of the entire process afresh. This Court is, therefore,
not inclined to transfer the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation.
42.However, refusal to transfer the investigation cannot be
understood as approval of the manner in which the Vigilance and Anti-
Corruption Department dealt with the petitioner’s complaint. On the
contrary, this case has revealed serious institutional deficiencies which
require immediate attention at the highest level of the Government. The
39/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
chronology narrated above demonstrates that the delay was not
occasioned by complexity of investigation but by avoidable
administrative procedures, excessive centralisation of decision-making
and an erroneous understanding of Section 17A of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Unless these systemic deficiencies are addressed, similar
delays are bound to recur in future cases involving allegations of
corruption.
43.These observations are not confined to the facts of the present
case alone. Within a short span of three months, this Court has had
occasion to deal with several matters concerning the functioning of the
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, exposing deficiencies in
(i) carrying trap proceedings to their logical conclusion despite the
availability of prima facie material; (ii) allegations of planted traps;
(iii) prompt identification and securing of properties in disproportionate
assets investigations; (iv) timely processing of vigilance complaints; and
(v) the practice of merely forwarding complaints to the Heads of
Departments without effective follow-up. Though the factual situations
40/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
differ, they disclose recurring institutional concerns which cannot be
brushed aside as isolated aberrations.
44.In the present day scenario, it is not easy for an ordinary citizen
to lodge a complaint against an erring public servant. The apprehension
is far greater when the complainant is a businessman whose day-to-day
activities are dependent upon various governmental authorities. Such
complainants are often exposed to the risk of victimisation and
retaliation. Therefore, it is imperative that the Directorate of Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption inspires confidence that every genuine complaint,
irrespective of the rank or status of the public servant involved, would
receive prompt, impartial and fearless consideration. While the
Directorate has undoubtedly registered cases against Village
Administrative Officers, Panchayat Secretaries, Village Assistants,
Constables and other officials at the grassroots level, cases against
higher-ranking officers such as Sub-Registrars, Tahsildars, Inspectors of
Police and officers above them are comparatively few. This Court has
also examined the nature of the Prevention of Corruption Act cases
41/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
presently pending before it and finds that prosecutions beyond the level
of Tahsildar are relatively uncommon. If that is so, it would mean that
only lower-level officials are corrupt and all higher officials are above
board. If that were really the position, corruption at the grassroots level
itself should not exist. This Court finds it difficult to accept such a
conclusion. While this Court does not suggest that corruption is confined
to any particular level of administration, the existing pattern necessarily
raises a legitimate concern as to whether allegations involving higher
functionaries are receiving the same degree of institutional attention as
those involving officials at the lower levels.
45.This Court has also called upon the Directorate to place the
particulars relating to its organisational structure, manpower,
functioning and administrative framework. The materials furnished
reveal that while the Directorate has made some efforts in combating
corruption, certain structural and administrative deficiencies continue to
impede its optimal functioning.
42/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
46.This Court also takes judicial notice of the consistent
commitment expressed by the present Government to eradicate
corruption from public administration. The recent policy initiatives
demonstrate that such commitment exists at the highest levels of
governance, and the positive changes are increasingly becoming visible.
The challenge, however, lies in ensuring that the same commitment
effectively reaches the grassroots, where the ordinary citizen comes into
contact with public administration on a daily basis. That objective cannot
be achieved merely through policy declarations. It requires a strong,
efficient and independent institution capable of translating
governmental resolve into effective enforcement. The Directorate of
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption is the principal institution entrusted with
that responsibility.
47.The existing administrative structure appears to concentrate
almost every important decision at the Directorate. District Vigilance
units, though headed by Additional Superintendent / Deputy
43/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
Superintendent level officers, are left with little operational autonomy.
Consequently, complaints, factual verification reports and proposals
move from one office to another before any meaningful action is taken.
The result is institutional delay without corresponding accountability.
Anti-corruption agencies are expected to function with speed, secrecy
and decisiveness. Administrative structures which unnecessarily
postpone operational decisions ultimately defeat the very purpose for
which such specialised agencies have been constituted.
48.The effectiveness of any anti-corruption institution depends not
merely upon the statutory powers conferred upon it but, more
importantly, upon the credibility of its leadership. The office of the
Vigilance Commissioner occupies the apex of the vigilance
administration and has a direct bearing on the supervision of
investigations and the overall functioning of the Directorate. Such an
institution deserves the undivided attention of a full-time head.
However, for years together, the office is being held as an additional
charge by a senior officer who is already heading another major and
44/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
sensitive Department. This Court finds it difficult to accept that, in a
State having a large pool of experienced officers of the Indian
Administrative Service, it is not possible to identify one officer of
unquestioned integrity, independence and administrative ability to
exclusively lead the vigilance administration. Appointment of a full-time
Vigilance Commissioner is not merely a matter of administrative
convenience; it is a reflection of the importance that the State attaches to
combating corruption and an essential step towards strengthening
public confidence in the institution.
49.Equally disturbing is the apparent misunderstanding regarding
the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The object
of Section 17A is to protect honest public servants from vexatious
prosecution. It is not intended to become a shield for delaying or
defeating legitimate vigilance enquiries. Despite repeated
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court clarifying
that allegations relating to demand or acceptance of illegal gratification,
accumulation of wealth disproportionate to the known sources of
45/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
income, etc., do not attract the protection under Section 17A, valuable
time continues to be wasted in seeking approvals, in cases which the law
itself does not contemplate. Such an approach not only delays
investigation but also frustrates the object underlying the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
50.This Court is surprised to note that the Vigilance Department,
which is expected to oversee nearly fifteen lakh Government servants
across the State, has a sanctioned strength of only 152 investigating
officers. Even out of this dismal strength, 14 posts are currently vacant.
With such limited manpower, the Department is often reduced to
functioning as a post office, merely forwarding a substantial number of
complaints to the respective Heads of Departments, instead of
independently verifying them. From the materials placed, this Court
found that even the available investigating officers are investigating
merely 1 or 2 Preliminary Enquiries and 1 or 2 Detailed Enquiries, per
year, only as a formality. The Vigilance Department has registered only
117, 134 and 182 cases during the years 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2025-26
46/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
respectively. Thus, it is clear that on an average, each investigation
officer is dealing with only one or two regular case throughout a year
and that too, as against Group C and Group D officials.
51.Another issue of considerable importance is the tenure of
officers serving in the Directorate. The Government has itself prescribed
a tenure policy to preserve institutional neutrality, prevent
organisational stagnation and facilitate induction of officers with fresh
perspectives and proven competence. Under GO.Ms.No.39, Personnel
and Administrative Reforms Department, dated 13.04.2009, the normal
tenure is three years, extendable by a further period of two years in
special circumstances and by another two years in extraordinary
circumstances based on the performance of the officer. Thus, even in
exceptional cases, the maximum permissible tenure is seven years. This
Court has, however, noticed that officers continue in the Directorate for
more than ten years beyond the prescribed tenure and some officers are
continuing for nearly twenty years. In fact, this Court has already taken
note of this issue in G.Senthilkumar v. Director General of Police
47/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
[WP(Crl.)(MD)No.1299 of 2026, dated 19.06.2026]. If such prolonged
continuation is to be justified as being indispensable in the institutional
interest, the performance of such officers must demonstrably warrant
such exceptional retention. However, the materials placed before this
Court do not indicate that the number of vigilance cases detected or
registered, or the overall outcomes achieved by such officers, are so
exceptional so as to justify repeated extensions or prolonged continuance
in deviation from the normal tenure policy.
52.If the same set of officers are perceived to be indispensable year
after year, it would unfairly imply that, among the lakhs of police
personnel serving the State, there are no other officers possessing the
integrity, competence and dedication required for vigilance
administration. This Court is unable to accept this assumption.
Prolonged continuance of the same officers beyond the prescribed tenure
also carries the risk of groupism and concentration of influence in a few
individuals. A specialised anti-corruption agency cannot afford such a
situation. These are precisely the consequences which the tenure policy
48/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
seeks to prevent. Strong institutions are built not by the indefinite
continuation of individuals but by adherence to institutional values,
periodic rotation and the continuous induction of officers of
unquestionable integrity and professional competence.
53.This Court is also constrained to observe that accountability
within the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department cannot end with
identifying the officer against whom allegations are made.
Administrative accountability must equally extend to officers
responsible for unexplained delay in processing complaints. Every
complaint involving demand of illegal gratification loses its evidentiary
value with the passage of time. Consequently, unexplained
administrative delay in dealing with such complaints deserves as much
attention as the investigation itself.
54.Apart from the institutional deficiencies noticed above, this
Court also considers it necessary to emphasise the need for technological
modernisation in the functioning of the Directorate. The Directorate
49/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
continues to depend substantially upon conventional paper-based
administration. Internal communications, movement of files, monitoring
of enquiries and investigations, maintenance of records and several other
administrative processes are still largely carried out through physical
files and manual procedures, resulting in avoidable delay and
administrative inefficiency. At a time when technology has transformed
policing and criminal justice administration, such dependence on
conventional methods does not appear consistent with the needs of a
specialised anti-corruption agency. Since the officers of the Directorate
are police officers, the technological measures recognised under the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 also deserve to be effectively
utilised, wherever legally permissible, in aid of investigation and
administration. The object of embracing technology is not merely to
replace paper with electronic records, but to ensure prompt decision-
making, effective supervision, greater institutional accountability and
efficient vigilance administration. In anti-corruption investigations,
every avoidable delay ultimately benefits the wrongdoer.
50/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
55.Having regard to the recurring institutional deficiencies noticed
in the present case as well as in the other matters dealt with by this
Court, this Court directs the Chief Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu
to constitute a High Level Committee, headed by the Chief Secretary,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order, to undertake a comprehensive review of the existing functioning
of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, particularly with
reference to the following aspects:-
A. Leadership and Institutional Governance
(i) Appointment of a full-time Vigilance Commissioner
exclusively to head the vigilance administration instead of
continuing long-term arrangements through additional charge.
(ii) Strict adherence to the tenure policy prescribed by the
Government, permitting deviations only in exceptional
circumstances supported by recorded reasons.
(iii) Periodic induction of officers possessing integrity,
competence and professional ability into the Directorate so that
vigilance administration continually benefits from fresh
perspectives and wider institutional experience.
(iv) Review of the continued retention of officers serving
in the Directorate beyond the prescribed tenure and ensuring
that the tenure policy is implemented in its true spirit.
51/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
B. Strengthening Institutional Capacity
(v) Comprehensive review of the sanctioned strength of
the Directorate and provision of adequate investigating officers
commensurate with its expanding responsibilities.
(vi) Decentralisation of appropriate administrative and
supervisory powers to suitable levels so that investigations and
vigilance activities are not delayed by avoidable administrative
bottlenecks.
(vii) Strengthening the Directorate by providing adequate
technical support, including officers possessing expertise in
engineering, accounts, finance, cyber forensics and other
specialised disciplines, wherever the nature of investigation so
demands.
C. Strengthening Investigation and Preventive Vigilance
(viii) Establishment of a dedicated Intelligence Wing
exclusively for gathering actionable intelligence relating to
corruption and identifying sectors vulnerable to corrupt
practices.
(ix) Establishment of separate Vigilance Cells in every
district for preventive vigilance, surprise inspections and
detection of systemic corruption, independent of officers
engaged in investigation of regular cases.
52/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
(x) Ensuring that supervisory officers (Range
Superintendents of Police) are stationed within their respective
territorial jurisdictions to facilitate closer supervision, prompt
decision-making and effective preventive vigilance.
(xi) Establishment of an institutional mechanism,
including an appropriate Trap Money Suspense Account, to
ensure immediate availability of funds required for trap
proceedings, subject to proper accounting and audit.
D. Administrative Reforms
(xii) Issuance of comprehensive administrative guidelines,
supported by illustrative examples, regarding the applicability
of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, so
that investigations are not delayed.
(xiii) Ensuring that requests requiring prior approval are
processed and decided within the time contemplated by law,
thereby preventing unnecessary delay in investigation.
(xiv) Establishment of an accountability mechanism
whereby, whenever unexplained delay occurs in processing
vigilance complaints, enquiries, investigations or in granting
sanctions, the supervisory authority shall examine the reasons
therefor and, wherever warranted, initiate appropriate
administrative action against the officers responsible for such
delay.
53/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
E. Technology and Public Interface
(xv) Progressive adoption of a secure and confidential
electronic platform for the functioning of the Directorate,
including internal communications, movement of files,
monitoring of enquiries and investigations, maintenance of
records and other administrative processes, and effective
utilisation, wherever legally permissible, of the technological
measures contemplated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, with necessary assistance from the State Crime
Records Bureau (SCRB).
(xvi) Ensuring appropriate confidentiality and protection
for genuine complainants in accordance with law.
(xvii) Strengthening authorised digital service delivery
mechanisms so as to progressively reduce the scope for
unauthorised intermediaries.
56.For the above purpose, the Chief Secretary to Government, State
of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai, is suo-motu impleaded as a party to
this petition and Mr.B.Saravanan, learned Additional Advocate General,
Assisted by Mr.S.Siva Subramanian, learned Government Advocate
(Civil Side), is to take notice on behalf of the newly impleaded
respondent.
54/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
57.We must have the courage to accept the deep rooted corruption
in the system that needs to be addressed imminently. The present
Government has consistently expressed its resolve to eradicate
corruption and to promote transparent and accountable governance.
This Court has also noticed that the recent policy initiatives reflect that
commitment at the highest levels of administration. However, such
commitment can achieve its intended objective only when it effectively
spreads through every level of governance. The ordinary citizen judges
the success of governmental policy not by official declarations, but by
the fairness, transparency and integrity experienced in everyday
interactions with public authorities. It is at that level that the Directorate
of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption assumes immense significance.
58.Corruption has taken deep root over several decades. It cannot
be eradicated either by enacting laws alone or by occasional enforcement
measures. Equally, it cannot be expected that an institution entrusted
with combating corruption can achieve optimum results unless it is
55/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
provided with adequate leadership, sufficient manpower, efficient
administrative support and functional autonomy. Sustained political
commitment must therefore be matched by sustained institutional
strengthening.
59.This Court is conscious that implementation of some of the
above suggestions may require additional financial allocation by the
Government. However, such expenditure should not be viewed as a
burden upon the State exchequer, but as an investment in strengthening
the institutional framework for combating corruption. The principle,
“Spend a little to save a lot,” aptly applies in this context. A comparatively
modest investment in improving the vigilance machinery would go a
long way in safeguarding the proper implementation of Government
projects and welfare schemes involving public expenditure many times
over. The financial commitment required for strengthening the vigilance
administration is insignificant when compared to the enormous public
funds that stand protected by an effective anti-corruption mechanism.
56/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
60.The suggestions indicated above are intended to serve as
institutional measures for consideration by the Government. This Court
is conscious that matters relating to policy, allocation of resources and
administrative restructuring primarily fall within the domain of the
Executive. The recommendations made herein are not intended to
supplant executive wisdom, but to assist it by drawing attention to
recurring institutional deficiencies which have repeatedly surfaced
before this Court.
61.Before concluding, this Court reiterates that the Prevention of
Corruption Act, was enacted to prevent corruption in public
administration. It is intended to protect honest public servants while
ensuring that corrupt public servants are brought to justice. It cannot be
permitted to become an instrument for shielding the corrupt or delaying
legitimate enquiries and investigations. The effectiveness of the
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption depends upon honest
leadership, efficient administration, adequate manpower, professional
57/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
investigation and prompt decision-making. If these foundational
requirements are strengthened, the Directorate will be better equipped to
fulfil the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act and translate the
Government’s commitment to eradicate corruption into a reality.
62.The High Level Committee shall not confine its exercise merely
to examining the institutional reforms suggested by this Court. It shall
also independently examine the shortcomings identified by this Court in
paragraph no.38 of this order, the manner in which the petitioner’s
complaint was dealt with, fix responsibility upon the officers concerned,
and recommend appropriate administrative action. The Committee shall
submit its cumulative report to the Government within a period of four
months from its constitution.
63.Upon receipt of the report, the Government shall examine the
recommendations of the High Level Committee and take appropriate
decision on the institutional measures within a period of three months
thereafter. As regards the recommendations relating to the handling of
58/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
the petitioner’s complaint and the responsibility of the officers
concerned, appropriate action shall also be taken in accordance with law
within the said period.
64.Registry is directed to list this matter under the caption “For
Reporting Compliance” during the second week of April, 2027. By then,
the Chief Secretary shall file a status report indicating (i) the action taken
on the recommendations relating to the institutional reforms; and (ii) the
action taken on the findings and recommendations relating to the
handling of the petitioner’s complaint.
65.This Court hopes and trusts that the Government will bestow
due consideration upon the institutional measures indicated in this order
and continue its efforts to strengthen the vigilance administration so that
the objective of eradicating corruption is effectively realised at every
level of governance.
59/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
With the above observations and directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Index : Yes / No 31.07.2026
Internet : Yes / No
gk
Note:
Mark a copy of this order to
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
2. The Secretary (I) to the Hon’ble Chief Minister,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
3. The Vigilance Commissioner,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
4. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption,
Chennai.
5. The Director,
State Crimes Record Bureau (SCRB),
Chennai.
60/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
6. The Director General of Police [HoPF],
Chennai.
7. The Inspector General of Police (Intelligence),
O/o.Director General of Police,
Chennai.
8. The Central Vigilance Commissioner,
Satarkta Bhavan,
Block A, GPO Complex, INA,
New Delhi – 110 023.
To
1.The Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.293, MKN Road,
Alandur, Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.576/4, EB Colony,
Chettinayakkanpatty, Trichy By-pass Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Vigilance & Anti Corruption Department,
No.576/4, EB Colony,
Chettinayakkanpatty, Trichy By-pass Road,
Dindigul – 624 004.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
CBI / ACB, Madurai, Madurai Zone,
73, Athikulam Main Road,
Reserve Line Post,
Madurai.
61/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
5.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department,
Chennai.
6.The Chief Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Secretariat, Chennai.
62/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP CRL.(MD). No.1108 of 2025
B.PUGALENDHI, J.
gk
WP CRL.(MD) No.1108 of 2025
31.07.2026
63/63
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
