https://youtu.be/QEgFUZg72sk?si=8oSO9VI2mYJ8IYe7 Further investigation ordered By PJ Karthikeyan / case against former minister [27/07, 20:34] sekarreporter1: *Case #220: _Further Investigation Ordered Against Ex-Minister R. Vaithilingam in Rs. 28 Cr Bribery Case*_ *Court*: _Chennai Principal Sessions Court_
[27/07, 20:33] sekarreporter1:
Further investigation ordered By PJ Karthikeyan / case against former minister
[27/07, 20:34] sekarreporter1: *Case #220: _Further Investigation Ordered Against Ex-Minister R. Vaithilingam in Rs. 28 Cr Bribery Case*_
*Court*: _Chennai Principal Sessions Court_
*Date*: _2026_
*1. Case Summary*
**Point** **Details**
**Accused** *R. Vaithilingam, Former AIADMK Minister for Housing & Urban Development, 2011-2016*
**Complainant** *Arappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption NGO*
**Allegation** *Received Rs. 28 Crore bribe to grant project approval for “Sri Ram Properties” apartment complex in Perungalathur, Chennai*
**Complaint Filed** *2022 with DVAC*
**FIR Registered** *Sept 2024 by DVAC, after 2-year delay*
**Latest Order** *Court allowed DVAC to conduct further investigation & directed report to be filed in 3 months*
**Political Update** *Vaithilingam joined DMK in Jan 2026*
*2. Facts*
1. *Period*: _2011-2016 – During AIADMK regime, Vaithilingam was Housing Minister_
2. *Allegation*: _Took Rs. 28 Cr bribe to approve Sri Ram Properties high-rise project in Perungalathur_
3. *DVAC Action*: _Registered FIR in Sept 2024 based on 2022 complaint_
4. *Earlier Stand*: _DVAC filed closure report saying “insufficient evidence”_
5. *Court Intervention*: _Sessions Court rejected closure report and ordered further investigation_
6. *Timeline*: _DVAC directed to complete probe and submit report within 3 months_
*3. Legal Principles*
1. *Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988*:
– _Sec 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration_
– _Sec 13(1)(d): Criminal misconduct by public servant_
2. *Further Investigation*: _Sec 173(8) CrPC / BNSS Sec 193(9) – Court can direct investigating agency to conduct further investigation_
3. *Judicial Scrutiny of Closure*: _Court is not bound by police/DVAC closure report. Can reject and order further probe if material exists_
4. *Time-bound Investigation*: _Courts can fix timelines to prevent delay in corruption cases_
*4. Significance*
1. *For DVAC*: _Cannot close case without proper probe. Court monitoring with 3-month deadline_
2. *For Public Servants*: _Ex-ministers can be investigated for decisions taken during tenure_
3. *For Civil Society*: _NGO complaint led to judicial direction for further probe_
4. *Context*: _Order comes after accused joined DMK in Jan 2026_
*5. HJS / Exam Note*
*Write*:
1. _Chennai Principal Sessions Court 2026 – DVAC vs R. Vaithilingam_
2. _Issue: Alleged Rs 28 Cr bribe for project approval during 2011-2016_
3. _Law: PC Act 1988 Sec 7, 13 + Sec 173(8) CrPC – Power to order further investigation_
4. _Held: Rejected DVAC closure report. Directed further investigation, report in 3 months_
*One-liner*: _“Court orders further DVAC probe against ex-minister Vaithilingam in Rs 28 Cr bribery case with 3-month deadline”_
—
*Case #220 Final*: _Chennai Sessions Court – Allows further DVAC investigation against Ex-Minister Vaithilingam – Rs 28 Cr Perungalathur bribe case_
*Master Docket*: _220 Cases_
*Tag*: _#220 Chennai Sessions + DVAC + Vaithilingam + PC Act + Corruption + Arappor Iyakkam + Further Investigation_
Want me to pull the *full order copy* from Judis sir? Or do you want a note on *Sec 7 vs Sec 13(1)(d) PC Act* for this case?
