Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Interim Protection for Former Tamil Nadu Minister

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court order that had restrained the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) from taking coercive action against former Tamil Nadu Public Works and Highways Minister E.V. Velu. The case involves alleged irregularities in road projects executed during his tenure in the previous DMK government.

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing an appeal by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)-led state government against the High Court's July 9 interim order. That order had stayed a Look Out Circular (LoC) against Velu and barred coercive action until July 28, when the DVAC was to file its counter affidavit in response to Velu's petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered on June 26, 2026.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the state, argued that the High Court had passed a “patently bad order”, effectively granting anticipatory bail even though Velu had not sought such relief. “The order was passed in a quashing petition, which contains no prayer for anticipatory bail... There is a blanket embargo against any coercive steps,” he submitted.

However, Justice Mehta disagreed, noting that the protection was conditional on Velu appearing before the investigating officer on July 15. “What do you mean by blanket embargo? He has been directed to appear for investigation. We know from the records that he has been summoned on July 15,” the judge remarked.

Singhvi then urged the court to direct Velu to cooperate fully with the investigation, pointing out that the former minister had travelled to Singapore after learning of DVAC searches. Dismissing the appeal, the Bench ordered: “Dismissed. The respondent shall extend all cooperation in the investigation. We have not examined the matter on merits.”

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Velu, argued the case was politically motivated, claiming it was initiated after the change of government. “This is just the beginning. I was an ex-Minister. The moment the government changes... this is the first case. Now more will come,” he submitted. Justice Nath countered that similar proceedings had been initiated under the previous government, remarking, “You have done the same thing earlier. What’s wrong in that?”

The state also sought surrender of Velu's passport, but the Bench declined, saying it was open to the government to seek appropriate relief from the competent court. The FIR stems from a 2022 complaint by activist Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam, alleging that over ₹5,000 crore was allocated for road works that were never executed, implicating public servants and private contractors.