The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) not only arrested Ankit Tiwari but also conducted a raid on the Madurai ED’s sub-zonal office, seizing essential documents, electronic gadgets, passwords, and more. This move comes against the backdrop of the ED’s ongoing searches on sand mining quarries in Tamil Nadu, bringing several DMK leaders under scrutiny. Notably, the Madras High Court had recently stayed the ED’s summons to five district collectors on November 29.
The timing of the DVAC’s actions raises eyebrows, with many viewing it as a political tit-for-tat. The DVAC’s raids occurred concurrently with the ED’s investigations, seemingly sending a message that the state agency wields similar powers to the ED. This development has triggered a political storm in the state.
Telangana Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan criticised the searches at the ED office, calling it a wrong precedent set by the Tamil Nadu government. She emphasised the need for cooperation between state and central governments and cautioned against undermining the entire agency based on individual issues.
The BJP chief in Tamil Nadu, Annamalai, urged against politicising the case, emphasising that the law should take its course. He called on the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP) to act on the complaint filed by the senior ED official. The complaint seeks the registration of an FIR against those who entered the ED premises in Madurai. Annamalai highlighted that only four out of the 35 individuals involved in the search operation identified themselves in the register.
Expressing concerns about the late-night search operation, Annamalai pointed out that it could have potentially exposed sensitive files related to prominent leaders. Files pertaining to sand mining and other cases, including the names of informers, were at risk, posing a threat to their safety.
Amidst this clash, the ED has sent a reminder to Tamil Nadu DGP Sangkar Jiwal, reiterating its request to register a case against DVAC officials and unauthorised persons. In reference to their complaint dated the 2nd of this month, the ED emphasised the alleged “illegal search operation,” which they claim involved criminal trespass, theft, and illegal access to sensitive records in the Madurai ED office.
The ED’s request for action has been pending for a fortnight, and they await a response from the DGP. The ED’s stance revolves around the assertion that the DVAC’s actions not only violated the law but also jeopardised crucial ongoing probes by gaining access to confidential records.
Quoting the Supreme Court decision in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and others, the ED emphasised that if information disclosing a cognizable offence is presented, the concerned police officer is obligated to register a case based on such information. In this case, the ED asserts that the information submitted on December 2 discloses a cognizable offence, urging the DGP to direct the concerned police station to register an FIR against DVAC officials and those involved in the alleged theft of records.
DVAC, on the other hand, maintains that only authorised personnel were part of the team, and the designated court was duly informed of the search operation. The ED, however, claims that 35 individuals entered their office premises, raising questions about the legitimacy of the operation.
The case against ED officer Ankit Tiwari revolves around allegations that he contacted a government doctor who had a case registered against him by the DVAC. Tiwari allegedly sought a bribe of Rs 3 crore to help the doctor evade legal action. The doctor paid the first installment of Rs 20 lakh on November 1, with Tiwari purportedly demanding the remaining Rs 31 lakh. The Madras High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of this high-profile bribery case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), upholding DVAC’s jurisdiction in the matter. Tiwari has been denied bail by the trial court.
BJP Advocate Meyyappan expressed concern over what he perceives as serious issues in the case. Notably, the senior surgeon who allegedly gave the bribe was not arrested, raising questions about his involvement. Meyyappan points to several loopholes in the case, including the absence of a trap, chemical-laced notes, and public witnesses. He questions the legitimacy of the arrests, with only four out of 35 individuals producing ID cards. Meyyappan asserts that DVAC, lacking the power to conduct such raids, should have sought assistance from the ED or obtained warrants from the relevant courts.
He further criticises the DGP’s reluctance to register an FIR against DVAC officials, considering it a wrong precedent. Meyyappan suggests that the Governor could invoke Article 355 for constitutional failure, emphasising the intrusion of outsiders, disguised as DVAC officials, into the ED office and the alleged removal of documents.
As the clash between the two agencies continues, the case has far-reaching implications, not only in the realm of corruption investigations but also in defining the limits of agency powers and the need for accountability and transparency in such operations. The ED’s call for a thorough investigation and the DVAC’s defence of their actions underscore the complexity of the situation and the critical importance of upholding the rule of law.
The standoff between the two agencies continues, and the incident underscores the complex interplay between state and central agencies in matters of corruption investigations, raising questions about the limits of their powers and the need for coordinated efforts to uphold the rule of law.
