Madras High Court Blocks Look Out Circular Against Ex-Minister Velu, Cites Medical Treatment in Singapore

The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 9, 2026) stayed the operation of a Look Out Circular (LoC) issued against former Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Minister E.V. Velu. The LoC was issued in connection with a case registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan granted the interim stay on the condition that Mr. Velu appear before the investigating officer for inquiry on July 15, 2026. The court noted that the petitioner is currently in Singapore for medical treatment and is scheduled to return to India only on July 12, 2026.

The judge also restrained the DVAC from taking coercive action against the petitioner until July 28, 2026. By this date, the investigating agency is expected to file its counter affidavit in response to the former minister’s plea to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered on June 26, 2026.

The interim orders were passed after hearing senior counsel Siddharth Luthra and P. Wilson for Mr. Velu, and Government Counsel (criminal side) R. John Sathyan for the DVAC. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the FIR was registered without obtaining the Governor’s consent. They also highlighted an inordinate delay of four years, as the alleged offence involved payments to private contractors in the State highways department in 2022, while the FIR was registered in 2026.

Mr. Wilson stated that the former minister had cooperated with the DVAC during raids at his residence immediately after the FIR was registered, and thereafter left for Singapore for medical treatment. However, the DVAC served summons at his residence on June 30, 2026. The first summons required his appearance on July 3, 2026. The petitioner replied that he would return only on July 12, 2026. The DVAC then issued a second summons on July 4, 2026, asking him to appear on July 9, 2026.

“The second summon specifically stated that failure to attend the inquiry today (July 9, 2026) would render the petitioner liable for arrest. Therefore, there is an imminent necessity to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner. He is over 70 years old and a heart patient,” the senior counsel told the court.

On the other hand, Mr. Sathyan contended that no Governor's sanction was required for registering the FIR, and it was sufficient that the Chief Minister had accorded sanction. He also noted that the complainant, Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam, was not included as a respondent in the petitions filed for quashing the FIR and rescinding the LoC.

After hearing both sides, the judge granted time until July 28, 2026 for the DVAC to file its counter affidavits and passed the interim orders.