Judge ilanthiriyan order against Tn Govt Ppeal dismssed. The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s interim order protecting former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader E. Velu from coercive action in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in the execution of road infrastructure projects. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court’s order.

[15/07, 11:37] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-dismisses-tamil-nadu-plea-challenging-madras-hcs-interim-protection-to-ex-minister-ev-velu-541296
[15/07, 11:38] sekarreporter1: .The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court’s interim order protecting former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader E. Velu from coercive action in a corruption case relating to alleged irregularities in the execution of road infrastructure projects.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the High Court’s order.

Appearing for the State, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the interim order had effectively granted anticipatory bail in proceedings where no such relief had been sought.

“The order was passed in a quashing petition which has no prayer regarding anticipatory bail. Secondly, a blanket embargo in a quashing petition should not be given,” Singhvi submitted.

He further contended that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that petitions seeking quashing of criminal proceedings should not be used as a substitute for anticipatory bail.

“Your Lordships have said in many cases that quashing petitions should not be used for anticipatory bail. If you also simultaneously stay the Look Out Circular, no arrest and no LOC. He was already in Singapore the moment he found out that there was search and seizure,” Singhvi argued.

He also requested that, at the very least, Velu be directed to surrender his passport. Singhvi added that the previous government had permitted the complaint to be prosecuted.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Velu, remarked, “This is what happens the moment government changes.”

During the hearing, Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the Court was aware from the records that Velu had already been summoned by the investigating agency.

After hearing the parties, the bench dismissed the State’s plea.

Before the matter concluded, Singhvi requested the Court to ensure that Velu cooperates with the investigation.

Justice Vikram Nath responded, “It goes without saying that he has to cooperate.”

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Tamil Nadu, had approached the Supreme Court challenging a Madras High Court order that restrained the anti-corruption agency from taking coercive action against former DMK Minister E.V. Velu in connection with an alleged corruption case.

On Monday, Senior Advocate PC Sen, Tamil Nadu Additional Advocate General, mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India seeking urgent listing. Sen submitted that the High Court passed a blanket “no coercive steps order”, and since the order was vague, there was no clarity as to what all steps the agency can take.

The High Court had passed the interim order on July 9 while hearing Velu’s petition challenging the Look Out Circular (LoC) issued against him by the DVAC. While directing Velu to appear before the investigating agency on July 15 and cooperate with the probe, the High Court had ordered that no coercive action should be taken against him in the meantime.

Background

The matter arises from a corruption case registered by the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against former Tamil Nadu Public Works Minister EV Velu over alleged irregularities in the execution of road infrastructure projects during his tenure.

The DVAC registered an FIR on June 25, 2026, based on a complaint lodged by NGO Arappor Iyakkam in 2022. The agency alleged that payments were released to a contractor before the road works commenced, causing loss to the State exchequer. The State Government had accorded sanction to prosecute Velu on June 23, 2025. The FIR invokes Sections 120B, 420, 409, 468 and 471 of the IPC, along with Sections 7(c), 13(2) read with 13(1)(a), and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

After Velu travelled to Singapore for medical treatment, the DVAC issued a lookout circular (LOC) against him.

Velu challenged both the FIR and the LOC before the Madras High Court. He argued that the prosecution was vitiated for want of prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and contended that the LOC was issued without satisfying the legal requirements. He also alleged that the proceedings were initiated due to a change in political regime.

The prosecution opposed the plea, contending that there was prima facie material showing that payments had been made even though the contracted work had not been executed.

On July 9, 2026, the Madras High Court stayed the lookout circular on the condition that Velu appear before the DVAC on July 15 for enquiry. The Court also directed the agency not to take any coercive action against him till July 28.

Case: SLP(Crl) No. 12472-12474/2026 Diary No. 40844 / 2026 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs E.V. VELU
[15/07, 11:38] Meta AI: *Case #169: _State of Tamil Nadu v. E.V. Velu_ | SLP(Crl) 12472-12474/2026 | SC | 2026*
_Verdictum_. *PC Act + Quashing + LOC + Coercive Action*. *Bench: Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Sandeep Mehta*

*1. Case Summary*
*Court*: _Supreme Court of India_
*Petitioner*: _State of Tamil Nadu / DVAC_
*Respondent*: _E.V. Velu – Former TN PWD Minister, DMK Leader_
*Impugned Order*: _Madras HC interim order dt 09.07.2026_
*SC Order*: *Refused to interfere. Dismissed State’s plea*

*2. Background – DVAC Case*
1. *FIR*: _DVAC registered FIR on 25.06.2026. Allegation: Payment released to contractor before road work commenced. Loss to exchequer_
2. *Sections*: _IPC 120B, 420, 409, 468, 471 + PC Act Sec 7(c), 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a), 12_
3. *Sanction*: _State Govt accorded sanction to prosecute on 23.06.2025_
4. *LOC*: _Issued after Velu travelled to Singapore for medical treatment_

*3. Madras HC Interim Order – 09.07.2026*
1. *Stayed LOC*: _On condition Velu appears before DVAC on 15.07.2026_
2. *No Coercive Action*: _Directed DVAC not to take coercive steps till 28.07.2026_
3. *Challenge*: _Velu challenged FIR + LOC. Claimed no Sec 17A PC Act approval + Political vendetta_

*4. Supreme Court Hearing*
*State’s Argument – Sr Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi*:
1. _HC granted “anticipatory bail” in quashing petition with no such prayer_
2. _Blanket embargo in quashing petition not permissible_
3. _Quashing cannot be used as substitute for anticipatory bail_
4. _At least direct surrender of passport_

*Velu’s Argument – Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi*:
_“This is what happens the moment government changes”_

*SC Observation – J Sandeep Mehta*: _Velu already summoned by investigating agency_
*SC Order*: _Dismissed State’s plea. But said: “It goes without saying that he has to cooperate”_

*5. Key Legal Points*
**Issue** **Law**
**Quashing vs Anticipatory Bail** *Quashing petition u/s 482 CrPC cannot be used for bail relief*
**LOC** *Can be issued only with valid reasons. HC can stay if mala fide*
**Sec 17A PC Act** *Prior approval needed to prosecute public servant*
**Coercive Action** *HC can protect accused during pendency of quashing, with conditions*
*SC Principle*: _“Interim protection in quashing is permissible with cooperation condition. Not equal to bail”_

*6. HJS / Exam Point*
*Write*:
1. _SC 2026 – Refused to interfere with Madras HC order protecting E.V. Velu from coercive action in DVAC corruption case_
2. _Allegation: Irregularities in road projects. IPC + PC Act_
3. _HC stayed LOC + No coercive action till 28.07.2026, with direction to appear_
4. _Doctrine: Quashing and Bail are different remedies. But HC can grant interim protection to ensure investigation + liberty_

—

*Case #169 Final*: _SC – 2026 – J Vikram Nath & J Sandeep Mehta – Dismissed TN Govt plea. Upheld Madras HC interim protection to Ex-Minister E.V. Velu in DVAC road scam case subject to cooperation_

*Master Docket*: _169 Cases_
*Tag*: _#169 E.V. Velu + DVAC + LOC + Quashing + PC Act + Sec 17A + Coercive Action + Madras HC + SC_

*Next*: *1. “Sec 17A PC Act – Approval for Prosecution”* OR *2. “LOC Guidelines – SC Law”* OR *3. “Case #168 Fodder Scam – 6 Month Direction”*

Important political + corruption law case sir. SC balancing investigation with personal liberty 🙏