CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into alleged irregularities in the ₹397-crore transformer procurement during V. Senthilbalaji’s tenure as Electricity Minister between 2021 and 2023, observing that there was suspicion of an attempt to suppress the truth and shield high-ranking officials and political figures.
Complaint Over Transformer Procurement
A First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan noted that anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam had lodged a complaint on July 6, 2023, against Mr. Senthilbalaji, former Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation chairman Rajesh Lakhoni, and Tangedco Financial Controller (Purchase) V. Kasi.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption later wrote to the State government on January 22, 2024, seeking permission to conduct a detailed inquiry. With no progress thereafter, Arappor Iyakkam moved the High Court in March 2024, seeking a direction to the DVAC to register an FIR on the basis of its complaint.
FCRF Academy Launches Premier Anti-Money Laundering Certification Program
Court Questions Delay And Scope Of Inquiry
The court noted that two individuals associated with the AIADMK also filed writ petitions in 2025 seeking similar relief. After those cases were filed, the State government granted sanction to the DVAC on September 26, 2025, to conduct a preliminary inquiry against Mr. Kasi alone, though the complaints had also named the former Minister and the former chairman of Tangedco.
The Bench observed that the excessive and unexplained delay in granting permission, along with the decision to downgrade the inquiry from a detailed inquiry without FIR registration to a preliminary inquiry limited to Mr. Kasi, raised suspicion of a cover-up.
CBI Asked To Conduct Fresh Probe
The Bench said the DVAC appeared to have conducted a detailed inquiry in the guise of a preliminary inquiry and submitted a 73-page closure report, holding that there was not enough evidence to substantiate the allegations against Mr. Kasi.
The court held that if the DVAC believed the complaint failed to disclose a cognizable offence, then conducting an exhaustive exercise involving 44 witnesses and 68 documents was unnecessary and legally unjustifiable. It said such action suggested that the agency had moved beyond the limited scope of a preliminary inquiry and carried out a full-scale probe before registering a case.
Ordering a de novo investigation by the CBI, the judges directed the DVAC to hand over the papers to the central agency within two weeks. The court also said the State government, Tangedco and DVAC must cooperate so the investigation can be completed at the earliest. The Bench clarified that its observations were limited to deciding whether an independent investigation was warranted and should not be treated as findings on the merits of the allegations.
