In a significant development reinforcing judicial oversight over executive action, the Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate a preliminary inquiry into allegations of irregular allotment of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh to firms linked to the family members of Chief Minister Pema Khandu.
The order marks a critical assertion of constitutional accountability, particularly in matters involving alleged conflict of interest, transparency in public procurement, and potential misuse of public office.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and N.V. Anjaria directed the CBI to register a preliminary enquiry within two weeks and examine the award and execution of contracts over a decade-long period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2025.
The Court further mandated that the CBI submit a status report within 16 weeks, indicating whether a full-fledged investigation is warranted.
Importantly, the agency has been granted liberty to examine transactions beyond the specified period if required, signalling a broad investigative mandate.
The case arises from a Public Interest Litigation filed by civil society organisations, alleging that government contracts worth approximately ₹1,270 crore were awarded to firms linked to the Chief Minister’s immediate family, including his spouse, mother, and nephew.
Petitioners argued that such allotments raise serious concerns of nepotism in public contracting. lack of transparency in tender processes and Potential violation of public trust doctrine
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, emphasised that the scale and pattern of allotments warranted an independent probe, as a state-led inquiry may not inspire confidence.
The Supreme Court issued a series of consequential directions to preserve the integrity of the inquiry. The State government must fully cooperate with the CBI. A nodal officer must be appointed for coordination. Authorities must ensure that no relevant records are destroyed and all necessary documents must be furnished within stipulated timelines directions reflect judicial sensitivity to the possibility of evidentiary dilution in corruption-related investigations.
At its core, the case raises foundational questions about fairness and transparency in public procurement, a domain governed by constitutional principles under Article 14 (Non-arbitrariness in State action), Doctrine of Public Trust and Principles of fairness in tendering and allocation of State largesse
The Supreme Court has, in prior jurisprudence, consistently held that State largesse cannot be distributed in an arbitrary or preferential manner, and must adhere to transparent and competitive processes. The Court’s intervention also underscores the continuing relevance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as a tool to trigger accountability in governance.
The petition, originally filed in 2024, sought either a CBI probe or constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), arguing that allegations involving high-ranking executive officials require independent and credible investigation mechanisms.
The Court’s decision to order a preliminary CBI inquiry strikes a calibrated balance neither prematurely indicting nor dismissing the allegations, but subjecting them to structured scrutiny.
The implications of the case extend beyond individual accountability. It tests the limits of executive discretion in awarding contracts. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in checking potential abuse of power. It highlights the necessity of institutional safeguards against conflict of interest. If substantiated, such allegations could implicate broader concerns relating to corruption, governance ethics, and erosion of public confidence in state institutions.
The Supreme Court’s direction for a CBI preliminary inquiry represents a crucial step in ensuring that allegations of favouritism in public contracts are subjected to independent scrutiny. At a constitutional level, the case reiterates a settled yet vital principle public office is a trust, and any deviation from fairness in distribution of State resources invites judicial correction.
As the inquiry progresses, its outcome will not only determine individual culpability but also shape the contours of accountability and transparency in public procurement across States.
