The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has reportedly filed a protest petition before the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai objecting to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption’s (DVAC) decision to close a ₹27.90 crore bribery case against former AIADMK minister R. Vaithilingam, who resigned as MLA in January 2026 before joining the DMK, as reported in The Hindu.
The protest petition was reportedly filed through ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh and challenged the closure report submitted by the DVAC in a corruption case linked to Vaithilingam’s tenure as Tamil Nadu’s Minister for Housing and Urban Development between 2011 and 2016.
According to the petition, the DVAC had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Vaithilingam on 19 September 2024 for alleged offences committed during his tenure in the cabinet of former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa. The FIR reportedly alleged that Vaithilingam, in his capacity as ex-officio Chairman of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), had received a bribe of ₹27.90 crore from Shriram Properties and Infrastructure Private Limited, later renamed Gateway Office Parks Private Limited, in exchange for granting planning permission for the construction of 1,453 additional buildings on 57.94 acres of land at GST Road in Perungalathur, Chennai.
Since the FIR was registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the ED reportedly registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on 1 October 2024 and initiated a parallel investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.
The ED stated in its petition that it had completed its investigation and filed a prosecution complaint, equivalent to a chargesheet, before the Special Court for PMLA cases on 14 July 2025.
According to the central agency, its investigation allegedly revealed that Bharath Coal Chemicals Limited, a group company of Shriram Properties, had transferred ₹27.90 crore to Muthammal Estates Private Limited, a company allegedly beneficially owned and controlled by Vaithilingam and his family members. The payments were reportedly made in multiple tranches between 28 January 2016 and 4 February 2016.
The ED further stated that the payments constituted the alleged bribe consideration for the planning approval. It claimed that the planning permission, which had been pending since 2 December 2013, was cleared on 24 February 2016, within three weeks of the receipt of the alleged bribe amount, thereby establishing what it described as a quid pro quo arrangement.
The agency also alleged that the money received was subsequently invested in the purchase of immovable properties in the names of the accused’s family members and that the current market value of those properties exceeded ₹100 crore.
According to the petition, the ED had provisionally attached all such properties pending trial in the money laundering case.
The agency further stated that it had shared the interim findings of its investigation with the DVAC on 10 March 2025 and had later forwarded a complete copy of its prosecution complaint on 19 May 2026. The petition stated that the ED had specifically requested the State anti-corruption agency to utilise the materials gathered during the money laundering investigation while preparing its final report in the corruption case.
However, the ED noted that Vaithilingam had quit the AIADMK and joined the DMK in January 2026 when the DMK was in power. The petition alleged that shortly thereafter, the DVAC filed a closure report in the corruption case during the last week of February 2026.
According to the protest petition, the closure report was filed in what the ED described as “suspicious proximity to the expiry of the term of the then State government.”
The ED further contended that the decision to file a closure report despite what it described as a complete and documented money trail, and without taking into account the evidence furnished by the agency under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, raised serious doubts regarding the bona fides of the investigation conducted by the DVAC.
The central agency also expressed concern that the money laundering case could be adversely affected if the accused were discharged in the predicate corruption case being investigated by the DVAC. It therefore urged the Principal Sessions Court to reject the closure report and direct the State agency to conduct further investigation before filing a comprehensive final report or chargesheet in the Prevention of Corruption Act case.
The protest petition is expected to come up for hearing before the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai on 12 June 2026.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
