Sanction is now in place for the Prosecution Of Two IAS Officers in the Chennai and Coimbatore road-tender case linked to former minister SP Velumani, the Madras High Court was told, and the judge remarked orally that cases involving influential people have to be pushed along.
Chennai: The Centre has granted sanction to prosecute IAS officers KS Kandasamy and K Vijaya Karthikeyan in the alleged tender irregularities case involving former Municipal Administration Minister SP Velumani, the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), has informed the Madras High Court. The statement came in a contempt petition filed by the NGO Arappor Iyakkam over delay in the proceedings [Arappor Iyakkam (Contempt Petition)].
Justice N Anand Venkatesh took note of the sanction at the hearing on November 12, 2026, and decided to keep monitoring the further steps taken by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). The case has been adjourned to December 2.
A remark on how cases against the influential move
The Court was told that the investigating agency would act on the sanction, take steps to investigate the two officers and file a final report. Hearing this, Justice Venkatesh orally remarked that the criminal process moves quickly against ordinary people but has to be pushed when those involved are influential:
“Classic case of how criminal law works in this country. See how much effort has been put in by so many people. Things move fast for poor people. But for influential people, we have to push and push, and ultimately we are here.”
The remarks were made orally during the hearing and do not form part of any finding on the merits of the allegations.
What is alleged
Velumani, an AIADMK leader, is accused of abusing his official position while serving as Minister for Municipal Administration. According to the prosecution, tenders for road works in the Greater Chennai Corporation and the Coimbatore Municipal Corporation were awarded with large-scale favouritism to his relatives and close associates.
On a complaint by Arappor Iyakkam, the DVAC held a preliminary enquiry and then registered a regular FIR under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. These are allegations, and they remain untested in a trial.
Why the contempt petition was filed
Some of the companies named in the case had approached the High Court to quash the FIR against them. The Court refused and directed the DVAC to file a final report before the jurisdictional court after obtaining the necessary sanction orders against the public servants. Arappor Iyakkam filed the contempt petition alleging that this direction had not been carried out.
At earlier hearings, the DVAC told the Court that it had complied and filed a final report, but that sanction to prosecute two IAS officers was still awaited. The Court criticised the delay, said cases against former ministers and senior civil servants must be dealt with expeditiously to keep public faith in the system, and called for an explanation from the DoPT under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions on the stage at which the file was pending.
Joint Secretary Sushil Kumar of the DoPT then appeared and explained that the delay arose from the volume of documents that had to be examined carefully. He assured the Court that the matter would be given top priority and the process completed within two months. On November 12, the Court was told that sanction had now been granted.
What the sanction does and does not mean
Sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act protects honest public servants against frivolous prosecution, but long delays in deciding sanction requests can stall corruption cases for years. By calling for the DoPT’s explanation and monitoring compliance through contempt proceedings, the High Court has used its supervisory role to move a pending file to a decision.
The grant of sanction only clears the way for the prosecution to proceed against the two officers. It is not a finding of guilt. Velumani, the officers and the other accused are entitled to the presumption of innocence, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the allegations, which will be tested before the trial court.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam (Contempt Petition), arising from the DVAC road-tender case
Bench: Justice N Anand Venkatesh, Madras High Court
Date of Hearing: November 12, 2026
Next Date: December 2, 2026