In a recent legal development, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) of Tamil Nadu has raised objections to the scheduling of a case before a particular bench, citing a prior listing before a different bench. 

Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing DVAC, argued that it was incorrect to assign cases originally before Justice Aniruddha Bose to the current bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi.

The objection arose during the hearing of DVAC's plea challenging a Madras High Court order, with the matter having been previously scheduled three times before the bench comprising Justice Bose and Justice Trivedi. Dave insisted that Justice Bose had expressed the intention to conclusively hear the case. However, Senior Advocate Aryama Sundaram, representing the respondent, countered this assertion, claiming that no notice had been issued in the matter.

Despite the court noting that no significant orders had been issued previously, Dave persisted and urged the bench to schedule the case before Justice Bose's bench. The bench instructed Dave to submit an application to the Registrar (Listing), awaiting approval from Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

The case in question involves DVAC's Special Leave Petition contesting the rejection of a 2018 petition filed by Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) member RS Bharathi. The petition sought an investigation into former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) concerning alleged irregularities in the awarding of State highway tenders.

The High Court had expressed disapproval of the Tamil Nadu government's decision to initiate a new investigation into the tendering process, emphasizing that DVAC had cleared EPS of any wrongdoing in 2018. The court found no justification for a fresh probe solely based on a change in the state's administration in 2021 and criticized the exploitation of courts for political maneuvering by political parties.

Bharathi argued that EPS had caused a loss of approximately ₹4,800 crore to the State exchequer, forming a central point of contention in this legal dispute. The advocate-on-record also wrote to the Registrar (Listing) a day before the hearing, asserting that, according to rules, the case should have been scheduled before Justice Bose's bench.

The unfolding events highlight the intricate legal proceedings surrounding the DVAC's efforts to contest the rejection of the 2018 petition and the complexities arising from bench assignments in the course of the hearing.

Case: The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption v. Edappadi Palaniswamy and Anr.