The Madras High Court recently made a crucial observation: cases of corruption involving sitting and former Ministers, other lawmakers, Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers, and similar influential individuals must not be allowed to get bogged down by lengthy legal procedures. Instead, these cases need to be handled as quickly as possible to restore public confidence in our criminal justice system. This significant statement came on Monday, October 13, 2025.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh shared these strong remarks in his interim order. He expressed deep disappointment that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has still not been able to begin the trial for a major case. This particular case, registered in 2021, concerns alleged irregularities totaling ₹98.25 crore in corporate contracts awarded during the tenure of former AIADMK Minister S.P. Velumani between 2014 and 2018.
During the hearing of a contempt of court petition filed by Jayaram Venkatesan of the anti-corruption group Arappor Iyakkam against DVAC officials, the judge agreed with the petitioner’s lawyer, V. Suresh, that the officials’ behavior was indeed contemptuous. However, giving them another chance, the judge postponed the contempt plea hearing to November 10, 2025.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, E. Raj Thilak, assured the court that the DVAC would translate all necessary vernacular documents into English within four weeks. Following this, a proposal would be sent to the Central government to grant permission to prosecute two IAS officers involved. In response, the judge instructed the prosecutor to provide an update on the progress by the next hearing and to explain why the officials should not face punishment.
The judge further stated that if the DVAC had encountered any difficulties in filing the charge-sheets within the timeframe he set in April 2024, they should have formally requested an extension. Yet, they failed spectacularly to file any such application. Moreover, even after the current contempt plea was submitted, the investigating agency demonstrated no significant advancement in the matter, according to the judge.
He firmly rejected the DVAC’s justification, which claimed that a proposal to prosecute two IAS officers was indeed sent to the Centre but was returned because translated copies of the supporting vernacular documents were missing. The judge highlighted that the DVAC, as a specialized body dealing exclusively with corruption cases, should have been fully aware of such fundamental requirements.
Justice Venkatesh concluded by pointing out that the rule requiring translated copies of vernacular documents has been in effect since October 18, 2024. Therefore, the DVAC could not use this as an excuse after a full year. The judge wrote, ‘This court finds that the respondent has not complied with the directions given by this court in letter and spirit… The conduct on the part of the respondent certainly hovers around contumacious conduct.’