Vrhovni sud odbio ometanje odbrane Visokog suda za bivšeg ministra DMK-a E.V. Velu u slučaju autoceste

The Supreme Court on July 15, 2026, declined to intervene in a Madras High Court order that restrained the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) from taking coercive actions against former Tamil Nadu Public Works and Highways Minister E.V. Velu in connection with allegations of irregularities in road projects during his tenure. The decision came as the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, heard an appeal filed by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)-led state government, which challenged the High Court's interim order dated July 9. The High Court had issued an order staying the operation of a Look Out Circular (LoC) against Mr. Velu and preventing the DVAC from taking any coercive measures against him until July 28. By that date, the investigating agency was required to file a counter affidavit in response to Mr. Velu's petition seeking the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered on June 26, 2026. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Tamil Nadu government, argued that the High Court's order constituted a “patently bad order” and effectively granted anticipatory bail without any formal request from Mr. Velu. Justice Mehta countered that the High Court had not issued a “blanket embargo.” Instead, the interim protection was conditional upon Mr. Velu appearing before the investigating officer on July 15, 2026, in compliance with a summons issued to him. He emphasized that the directive did not prevent all investigative activities, noting that Mr. Velu had already been summoned for questioning. Mr. Singhvi further urged the Bench to direct Mr. Velu to fully cooperate with the ongoing probe. He highlighted that Mr. Velu had traveled to Singapore shortly after being informed of the DVAC's search operations. The Bench, however, dismissed the appeal and instructed Mr. Velu to cooperate with the investigation, stating that they would not examine the matter on its merits. In support of Mr. Velu, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated and had been initiated only after the change of government in Tamil Nadu. He suggested that this marked the beginning of a series of cases targeting former officials. Justice Vikram Nath refuted this claim, pointing out that similar investigations had been initiated even during the previous government's tenure. “You have done the same thing earlier. What’s wrong in that?” he asked. Mr. Singhvi then requested that the Bench direct Mr. Velu to surrender his passport to aid the investigation. However, the Bench refused to issue such a directive, stating that it was up to the state government to seek appropriate legal remedies from the relevant court. “It will be open for the Tamil Nadu government to apply before the court concerned for confiscation of the passport. Go and apply. Courts have the power,” the Bench stated. The FIR against Mr. Velu was filed on April 20, 2022, by Jayaram Venkatesan, the convenor of the anti-corruption organization Arappor Iyakkam. The complaint accused not only the then Highways Minister but also several public servants and private contractors of facilitating offenses, including misappropriating public funds for road projects that were allegedly never completed. The complaint alleged that over ₹5,000 crore had been allocated under the state highways department’s flagship program.