In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India is deliberating on whether to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that alleges corruption in the awarding of certain contracts by the Arunachal Pradesh government. The bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, is hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) where the petitioners allege that contracts were given by the state government without floating any tender.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner’s organization Voluntary Arunachal Sena, responded to Justice Trivedi’s concerns about the delay in bringing these allegations on record by stating, “I am seeking orders regarding 165 contracts that were awarded without following proper tender procedures.”
Bhushan posed a vital question to the court:
“What is the duty of any court when presented with prima facie evidence of serious wrongdoing by a CM?”
Justice Trivedi questioned where the petitioner had been “if he was such a vigilante”. Bhushan informed the bench that the petitioner was an organization of monks and said that it had no vested interests. He reiterated the court’s duty in dealing with matters involving prima facie evidence of grave wrongdoing. In response, Justice Trivedi said that the litigant’s responsibilities must be assessed first before getting into Court’s duty.
Bhushan urged the court,
“I am on a larger issue. Let’s assume the applicant is a crook/bogus. Now he has brought to the court evidence of actual contracts issued by govt of which CM is a minister to a company that belongs to him. The duty of the court is not to dismiss this fellow. Duty is to appoint amicus, discharge petitioner.”
Justice Bela Trivedi raised concern asking;
“Time gap has also to be seen? Let officers do some important work?”
Bhushan countered,
“What can be more important than ex facie corruption? Without tender how can you award a contract?”
Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, defending the current Chief Minister, referred to two judgments emphasizing that writ courts could not entertain PILs for Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiries when alternate statutory remedies were available. He argued that the initiation of investigations lies exclusively within the domain of the executive branch of the government. He remarked that
“Merely because Mr Bhushan says so, everybody should be considered a thief in this country”?
Bhushan, however, countered by alleging that the state’s finances were being plundered and that the court’s conscience should be aroused. He stated,
“My conscience is aroused, and the court’s conscience should also be aroused. the state’s finances are being plundered.”
He further emphasized that the court was entitled to treat the Interlocutory Application (IA) as a Writ Petition (WP) in cases of serious concern. He submitted that;
“we’ve come up with irrefutable documents against the present CM. His increase in income is phenomenal- he’s the 2nd richest CM in the country.”
The bench has scheduled further hearings for directions in four weeks and has asked Advocate Prashant Bhushan to submit a short note of his compilation to assist the court. The case, titled Voluntary Arunachal Sena v State of Arunachal Pradesh, continues to unfold, shedding light on the complexities of corruption allegations and the role of the judiciary in addressing them.