DA case comes back to bite Panneerselvam as DAVC asked to speed up probe

 The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DAVC), one of Tamil Nadu's primary investigating agencies, has initiated a probe into the disproportionate assets of Deputy Chief Minister O. Panneerselvam. The DVAC informed the Madras High Court on Wednesday that it is conducting a preliminary enquiry into the graft case registered against OPS.

The 'Dharma Yudh' fame leader was first exposed by THE WEEK, following which Arappor Iyakkam—a Chennai-based anti-corruption NGO—and the DMK filed a complaint with the DVAC, seeking a probe into the disproportionate assets of OPS and his family members. The NGO filed its complaint in December 2017, and later, DMK’s Rajya Sabha MP R.S. Bharathi filed a complaint with the DVAC on March 10, 2018. As there was no progress made on the complaints, the DMK approached the Madras High Court seeking direction to the DVAC to initiate a probe, while Arappor Iyakkam filed a petition on the same grounds on July 21.

Appearing on behalf of the government, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that an investigation into the allegations of amassing wealth has been initiated and the agency will probe into the sources of income and wealth of OPS and his family members. He said the investigation was ordered on July 18—a day after the DMK filed its petition in the Madras High Court.

However, sources say the government had acted cleverly by claiming that the preliminary enquiry had started not only to avoid the wrath of Madras High Court, but also to ensure that the court does not transfer the case to CBI or any other investigating agency. Justice G. Jayachandran had earlier pulled up the government for not acting on a specific complaint against a public servant.

On Wednesday, as the case came up for hearing, Vijay Narayan wasted no time to say that the DVAC had already begun the inquiry. When the opposition party and the NGO asked for a time-bound investigation, the AG assured that this will be done.

Appearing for the DMK, senior counsel N.R. Elango argued that if the DVAC had registered preliminary enquiry, it has to be done in accordance with judgment of a constitutional bench of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of U.P.& Ors 2014 (2)SCC 1. In the judgment, it was ordered that “While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound, and in any case it should not exceed seven days”.

Hearing this, Justice Jayachandran ordered the DVAC to complete its enquiry expeditiously and added that the DMK or the Arappor Iyakkam can approach the court if the enquiry is not carried out. Taking into account and recording AG’s submission, Justice Jayachandran closed the petition and directed the petitioners (DMK and Arappor Iyakkam) to approach the court if they find fault with future investigations. However, as per Para 27 of DVAC Manual, a preliminary enquiry should be completed within a time limit of two months.

A DVAC case against OPS in 2006, filed by the then DMK regime, was closed as the prosecution withdrew the case. “The Court has ordered to complete the probe expeditiously. But Arappor Iyakkam filed the complaint in December and no probe was ordered. Now we went to the court seeking direction to the DVAC. We feel the agency will only drag its feet as he is the deputy chief minister,” said Jayaraman Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam.

Given the fact that a similar DVAC case registered against OPS was withdrawn by the agency itself, Jayaraman expressed his doubts about the fairness of the investigation.

On December 3, 2012, after the AIADMK came to power, the DVAC case against OPS was dropped as the state government’s special public prosecutor filed an application before the chief judicial magistrate at Sivaganga, stating that there was no reason to continue the case and that the government had given permission to withdraw the case. In 2009, when the disproportionate assets case was pending in the Theni chief judicial magistrate’s court, OPS filed a petition under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), requesting the court to ask the police to reinvestigate the case. As the prosecution could not convince the magistrate otherwise, he ordered a reinvestigation. Meanwhile, special courts were set up to hear cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the DVAC wing in Madurai proceeded with the case there, with the same charge-sheet.

OPS and the other accused then approached the special court saying the Theni court had ordered a reinvestigation. As the special court did not accept this argument, they filed another petition in the High Court in Madurai saying the case cannot have a territorial jurisdiction. They got it transferred to the Sivaganga court which acquitted OPS and his kin in 2012 citing insufficient evidence. Earlier, in 2009, the case was transferred from the chief judicial magistrate Court in Theni to Sivagangai, as a final report was filed before the CJM, Theni. The final report allowed the transfer of the case from Theni to Sivagangai.

However, with OPS falling out of favour in Delhi after Tuesday’s incident of Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman snubbing him and the continuing factional feud with the EPS camp has made deputy chief minister's troubles increase multi-fold in the recent days. “I think now OPS is now becoming vulnerable. What happened yesterday in Delhi tells two things—OPS doesn’t command much respect among the senior BJP ministers. When you compare this with the OPS's honeymoon period with Modi, wherein Modi gave four appointments within a span of 10 days, what’s happening now looks puzzling. It seems OPS is going face legal problems as well. One thing which everyone should not forget is the cold war or a war of sorts between OPS and EPS,” said senior journalist R. Mani.