A month after former AIADMK minister R. Vaithilingam joined the DMK, the outgoing DMK government headed by then Chief Minister M.K. Stalin closed a corruption case against him in which he had been accused of receiving a ₹27.9 crore bribe to facilitate planning permissions for a real estate company, according to official documents, as reported in Free Press Journal.
As reported, sources stated that Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) M.E. Ramachandramoorthy, the investigating officer in the case, appeared before the Sessions Court on June 4 and reaffirmed the submission of the closure report.
Vaithilingam, who represents the Orathanadu constituency in Thanjavur district, subsequently contested and won the 2026 Assembly election on a DMK ticket.
The case pertained to Vaithilingam’s tenure as Housing and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2016. He had been accused of receiving a bribe from Shriram Properties and Infrastructure Private Limited, now known as Gateway Office Parks, in exchange for facilitating planning approvals.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) registered the case in September 2024 against Vaithilingam, his sons, and officials of the private company based on a complaint filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam.
Vaithilingam joined the DMK on 21 January 2026, in the presence of M.K. Stalin and other senior party leaders.
According to the report, the DVAC’s decision to close the case was based on orders issued by the then Chief Secretary to the Tamil Nadu government on 19 February 2026, following three months of internal deliberations. The Model Code of Conduct for the Tamil Nadu Assembly elections came into effect on 15 March 2026.
Jayaram Venkatesan of Arappor Iyakkam, whose organisation had filed the original complaint against Vaithilingam, alleged that the sequence of events indicated a quid pro quo involving the DMK leadership. He contended that the FIR had been used to bring Vaithilingam into the party and that the case was subsequently closed. He further asserted that responsibility ultimately rested with Stalin.
Responding to the allegations, DMK spokesperson R.S. Bharati stated that he was unaware of the details of the case but maintained that there was nothing political about the matter and that it had no connection with politics. Officials of the DVAC declined to comment.
The allegations in the case centred on claims that in February 2016, Shriram Properties and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. routed ₹27.9 crore to Muthammal Estates Pvt. Ltd., a company allegedly controlled by Vaithilingam’s sons, Prabu and Shanmugaprabu. Investigators had alleged that the payment was made in return for planning permission granted to the company for the construction of 1,453 residential and information technology buildings on a 57.94-acre site at Perungalathur near Chennai.
According to the allegations, the funds were routed through Bharat Coal Chemicals Limited (BCCL), which the DVAC had described as a group company of Shriram Properties.
However, in the closure report submitted before a Sessions Court in Chennai, the DVAC stated that its investigation had not uncovered conclusive or corroborative evidence to substantiate allegations of illegal gratification or personal gain by Vaithilingam or any other public servant involved in the planning approval process.
The closure report acknowledged that Muthammal Estates had received ₹27.9 crore from BCCL but concluded that the payment was made for the acquisition of 24.96 acres of land in Tiruvallur district intended to revive a long-pending ammonia project. The DVAC cited an unregistered agreement executed between BCCL and Muthammal Estates in support of this conclusion.
The report also referred to an additional payment of ₹2.1 crore made to Pannerselvam, Vaithilingam’s brother-in-law, stating that this amount was likewise connected to the same land acquisition purpose.
The DVAC further stated in its closure report that the investigation had failed to establish any direct financial or operational connection between the accused Shriram group companies and BCCL. It reported that no evidence of fund transfers, whether direct or routed through intermediary entities, had been found. The agency also stated that it was unable to identify any business transaction or commercial relationship between the Shriram group companies and BCCL.
Jayaram Venkatesan disputed these findings and alleged that the DVAC’s conclusions were questionable. He maintained that BCCL was part of the Shriram group and questioned whether the closure report had received the approval of the new Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government.
Exclusive: DMK government under CM Stalin closed a corruption case against former AIADMK minister Vaithilingam one month after he joined the party, and one month before Model Code of Conduct for 2026 elections. Clear case of quid pro quo by Stalin, alleges Arappor Iyakkam. Not… pic.twitter.com/GrGY3bGzCR
— Siddharth Prabhakar (@Sidprabhakar7) June 9, 2026
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
