Madras High Court dismisses PIL seeking recovery of ₹10 lakh discretionary grant given to Governor R.N. Ravi’s media adviser, stating the issue falls under Accountant General’s scrutiny.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chennai: The Madras High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition questioning the use of the Governor of Tamil Nadu’s discretionary funds. The plea sought recovery of ₹10 lakh, allegedly disbursed to Governor R.N. Ravi’s media and communication adviser, S. Thirugnana Sampandam.
Court’s Observation
A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sunder Mohan dismissed the petition. The Bench clarified that it was not for the court to decide whether the Governor’s grant violated the Finance Code. Instead, the matter lay within the purview of the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, who was empowered to audit and examine such expenditures.
The court, while dismissing the petition, ruled that:
- The petitioner’s claim did not warrant a court intervention through a PIL.
- The issue of financial propriety falls under audit mechanisms, not judicial review.
- The Accountant General is the competent authority to scrutinize such grants.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court suspends trial judge Sanjeev Kumar Singh, disciplinary action underway
The Petition
The PIL was filed by S. Gandeeban, who argued that the Governor’s discretionary grant should only be used for public welfare purposes, charitable institutions, or individuals in genuine need of assistance. He cited Article 213 of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code, which governs such grants and makes them subject to audit by the Accountant General.
Through applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, Gandeeban discovered that ₹10 lakh had been given to Mr. Sampandam, who was appointed as the Governor’s media and communication adviser in November 2022. Though the appointment was made on an honorary basis without salary, the petitioner claimed that such a huge sum from public funds could not be justified.
He described the payment as a “gross irregularity” and noted that it had gone unnoticed by the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu. Before moving the High Court, he had also made a representation to the Finance Secretary in July 2025, requesting recovery of the money, but alleged that no action was taken.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Sanjeev Kumar Singh
