DVAC Cannot Ignore Corruption Complaints Over Absence Of Documents, Must Gather Evidence Itself: Madras High Court

“The purpose of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department is not to function as a post office. 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,” the court observed.

Justice B Pugalendhi added that as per the Vigilance Manual, the department had the power to discreetly verify facts, access roads, and conduct discreet searches. The court added that the strength of the department was crucial for preventing corruption. Noting that the department, at present was understaffed, the court asked the Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate steps to strengthen the department and enhance the sanctioned strength and infrastructure within 6 months.

“The strength and effectiveness of the Vigilance Department is crucial in preventing corruption. This Court is informed that while the sanctioned strength is 611 Officers / Officials, only 541 are currently working, and the Department is expected to oversee more than 16.93 lakh Government servants across the State. 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 noted.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Malar Selvi seeking directions to the Director of DVAC, the Superintendent of Police (Southern Range), and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) to conduct a proper inquiry based on her complaint. Selvi had alleged that certain revenue officials were colluding with private individuals and making fraudulent patta transfers over her ancestral property, to which she had an inheritance right.

Selvi had submitted that she was made to believe that patta transfer and legal heir certificate was mandatory to regularise her claim and was coerced into paying Rs. 2,00,000/- of which Rs. 45,000 was paid via G-Pay to the wife of Village Administrative. Since her complaint was not met with any response, she approached the court.

In response, the department submitted that the complaint did not contain any material particulars.

The court however noted that the absence of enclosure could not be a justification for administrative inaction. The court noted that even if there were no materials enclosed with the complaint, the department should have proactively summoned Selvi to collect materials. The court also added that when the complainant had named officials, the department had an obligation to collect materials to corroborate the same.

“A mere absence of enclosures cannot be a justification for administrative inaction when the complaint itself discloses a cognizable offence. When the complainant has named officials, mentioned dates, and alleged payment of bribes through traceable means, the obligation is on the Department to initiate verification and gather corroborative evidence. The failure to do so, and the mechanical forwarding of the complaint to the District Collector, reflects abdication of the investigative mandate,” the court said.

Though the Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint was forwarded to the District Collector for prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court reiterated that the defence under Section 17 A could not be stretched to provide a blanket protection. The court said that the defence could only be used for an act connected to official recommendation and was not a license to demand bribe.

Noting that the patta in question was transferred in a highly suspicious manner, the court said that an independent and detailed scrutiny was necessary. The court thus directed the Superintendent of Police to register an FIR based on the complaint and procced with the enquiry. The court was also informed that the officers concerned have been subjected to departmental proceedings and have been placed under suspension.

The court also directed the District Collector to ensure that the pattas are re-examined independently and to take necessary action against the officers. The court also asked Selvi to cooperate with the investigation and provide additional evidence.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Vanchinathan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P. T. Thiraviam, Government Advocate

Case Title: Malar Selvi v. The Director DVAC

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 239

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