Factual Matrix 

In the Matter at hand, R.S. Bharathi v. Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption petitioned the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register and look into the complaint against former Chief Minister EK Palaniswami over the Highway contract fraud under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Analysis of Court order 

The preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Additional Police Superintendent, Special The Examination Cell, Vigilance and Corruption Prevention, Enquiry Officer does not suffer from any evident illegality or unreasonableness in obtaining the conclusion regarding every allegation that was made against the Executive, according to the Madras High Court’s Single Judge Bench Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, which expressed regret over the Executive’s complete loss of independence from the judiciary. Furthermore, it claimed that there was no justification for carrying out a new preliminary investigation as the Government had directed because the instruction had only been provided as a result of the political party that had won the election. The sole legal remedy that applies to RS Bharathi is provided by Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Central Bureau of Investigation was given the investigation by the Director, and the Single Judge further ordered the CBI to complete the preliminary investigation within three months. DVAC and EK Palaniswami appealed this order to the Supreme Court, where the Court overturned it without commenting on the merits and ordered DVAC to turn over all case materials and files to the Joint Director of the CBI for the agency to launch an investigation into the defendant. Additionally, it returned the case to the High Court so that it may review it from scratch, take into account the preliminary report that the DVAC had filed against EK Palaniswami, and issue any necessary decisions in line with the law.

CASE NAME – R.S. Bharathi v. Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Original Petition (Cri) No. 20711/18