Safiya Malik

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice B. Pugalendhi has directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) based on a bribery complaint, holding that the allegations made disclosed a cognizable offence warranting immediate investigation. The court ordered the second respondent to proceed in accordance with law, regardless of pending departmental proceedings. It further instructed the District Collector to conduct an independent reassessment of disputed patta transactions and called upon the State Government to strengthen the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department by enhancing its manpower and resources within a stipulated timeframe.

In doing so, the court made strong observations about the functioning of the Vigilance Department, cautioning against mechanical forwarding of complaints and stressing that absence of supporting documents cannot be grounds for inaction when the allegations involved specific and traceable payments. The court also initiated suo-motu impleadment of senior officials to assess departmental functioning, complaint handling, and the structural constraints hampering corruption control. The court stated that combating corruption is a constitutional imperative, not a discretionary policy.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes Rape And Assault FIRs Based On Settlement | Says Continuation Of Proceedings Would Be Abuse Of Process | Complainant Married And Unwilling To Pursue Charges Under Section 376 IPC

The petitioner, a widow, approached the court with a grievance that certain ancestral lands originally belonging to her deceased father-in-law were fraudulently alienated by public officials in connivance with private parties. Her husband had passed away in 2022, and she claimed inheritance over properties held by Periyasamy Thevar, who in turn inherited them from his brother, Ramasamy Thevar. She alleged that the disputed properties, including lands in Survey Nos. 81/1B1 and 81/1B2 located in Athikaraipatti Village, were illicitly transferred despite prior registered documents in favour of other family members.

The petitioner contended that one Thillaiambala Natarajan, with support from revenue officials, had orchestrated patta transfers using forged documents. She alleged that to regularize her claim, officials from the Revenue Department advised her to produce legal heir certificates and pattas, for which they demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The amount was allegedly paid in instalments, with Rs.45,000/- transferred digitally via G-pay to the wife of the Village Administrative Officer.

Despite the payments, further bribes were reportedly sought, prompting the petitioner to lodge a complaint on 06.07.2024 before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department (DVAC). Dissatisfied with the lack of response, she sought judicial intervention for a proper enquiry and appropriate penal action against the concerned officials.

In her plea, she relied upon the precedent set in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1], which mandates registration of FIRs in cognizable offences without preliminary inquiry. Her counsel stated the suspicious sequence of events: the application for patta transfer in the name of one Selvi on 16.05.2023, the grant of the patta the very next day, and the subsequent sale on 19.05.2023, followed by immediate transfer to Thillaiambala Natarajan. These actions occurred despite the existence of previous registered documents and the petitioner’s familial claim.

The Vigilance Department, however, submitted that under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval was required for initiating an investigation against public servants. The Department had forwarded the complaint to the District Collector in compliance with G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 19.12.2018 and the Vigilance Manual.

However, the court noted that the communication dated 01.08.2024 from the Superintendent of Police, Southern Range, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to the District Collector made no mention of Section 17-A or prior approval. The communication stated that the allegations were general in nature and required departmental verification. It further noted that no inquiry was conducted by the Directorate.

This prompted the court to suo-motu implead the District Collector and the Vigilance Commissioner to assess the systemic handling of complaints, the functioning of the DVAC, and statistical data regarding complaints and FIRs over the last five years. The Vigilance Commissioner responded that the complaint lacked supporting documents and the Department, constrained by manpower, was unable to verify every petition. Thus, it followed standard protocol in forwarding the complaint.

The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption also submitted data on the number of complaints processed and the staff strength, affirming the pressure on the department given the volume of work and the limited sanctioned strength.

Meanwhile, during the pendency of the writ petition, the District Collector, following the court’s direction, ordered an enquiry through the Tahsildar, Peraiyur. Based on the report, disciplinary action under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules was initiated and the Village Administrative Officer was suspended. Further permission was granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti, to allow the Vigilance Department to continue investigation.

The Court "found prima facie seriousness in the complaint" and suo-motu impleaded higher officials to "obtain a clearer picture of the Department’s functioning" and the systemic constraints. It recorded that "the petitioner has named officials, mentioned dates, and alleged payment of bribes through traceable means" and therefore, "the obligation is on the Department to initiate verification and gather corroborative evidence."

It was observed that "a mere absence of enclosures cannot be a justification for administrative inaction when the complaint itself discloses a cognizable offence." The court stated that "failure to do so, and the mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the District Collector, reflects abdication of the investigative mandate."

The court noted: "The complaint clearly alleged demand and receipt of bribe. Even in the absence of any petition pending with the Revenue Department, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is actionable and constitutes a cognizable offence."

It was further recorded that "the Department was constituted in 1964 to function as a specialised investigative agency with the mandate to combat corruption and gather intelligence across Departments. Every complaint cannot be brushed aside merely because documents are not enclosed."

Quoting from the Vigilance Manual, the court stated that "the Department has the power to discreetly verify facts, access records, and even conduct searches. Even if a preliminary enquiry is contemplated, its scope is limited to ascertain whether the complaint reveals a cognizable offence, not to establish the truth or admissibility of evidence."

In response to the reference to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court clarified: "The defence of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be stretched to provide blanket protection. It applies only where the alleged act is integrally connected to an official recommendation or decision. It is not a licence to demand bribe."

It also stated that this position has been affirmed in multiple judgements including Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh [AIR 2012 SC 1185] and State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy [2025 INSC 229].

Regarding the speed of patta transfer, the court recorded: "The patta mentioned in the complaint appears to have been transferred in a highly suspicious and expedited manner... The entire chain of transactions and officials involved must be reviewed thoroughly."

On the question of departmental capacity, it observed: "The sanctioned strength is 611 Officers/Officials, but only 541 are working... approximately 15,000 complaints are received annually. It is obvious that the current manpower and infrastructure are grossly inadequate to address the scale and complexity of corruption."

The court also stressed: "Combating corruption is not an optional policy, it is a constitutional imperative."

The court directed that "the second respondent is directed to register an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint dated 06.07.2024, if the same discloses a cognizable offence, and to proceed with the investigation in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the pendency of any departmental proceedings."

Also Read: Bombay High Court Says SEBI Reports With Third-Party Info Cannot Be Disclosed Without Section 11 RTI Hearing | Sets Aside CIC Order Partially Granting Disclosure | Remands Unanswered Queries Back To CPIO For Fresh Consideration

It further ordered: "The District Collector, Madurai, shall ensure that the pattas mentioned in the complaint and connected transactions are re-examined independently by an Officer not connected with the earlier enquiry. Necessary action has to be taken as against all the erring officials."

Additionally, the court recorded that "the Government of Tamil Nadu is expected to take immediate steps to strengthen the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, by reviewing and enhancing its sanctioned strength and infrastructure, within six months."

It also stated that "the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and provide any additional evidence in her possession."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Vanchinathan, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 to R3; Mr. P.T. Thiraviam, Government Advocate for R4 to R7, R9, R10

Case Title: Malar Selvi v. The Director, DVAC & Others

Case Number: WP(MD)No.21023 of 2024

Bench: Justice B. Pugalendhi