Madras High Court Summons Retired IAS Officer Reeta Harish Thakkar Over Delay in Velumani Tender Scam Case; Seeks Accountability for Pending Prosecution Sanction
The Madras High Court has come down heavily on the prolonged delay in granting prosecution sanction against two IAS officers allegedly linked to the ₹98.25 crore tender irregularities case involving former Tamil Nadu minister S.P. Velumani. In a significant development, the court has directed retired IAS officer Reeta Harish Thakkar to appear through video conferencing and explain why the proposal remained pending for months during her tenure as Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Public Department.
The order signals the court’s growing impatience with what it described as an unexplained administrative delay in a high-profile corruption case that has been under judicial scrutiny for several years. The court made it clear that retirement from government service does not absolve a public servant of accountability for decisions, or the lack of them, taken while holding office.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh issued the interim direction while hearing a contempt petition filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam, which has alleged that the authorities have repeatedly failed to comply with earlier directions of the High Court regarding the prosecution of those accused in the case.
Court Orders Reeta Harish Thakkar to Explain Delay
Justice Venkatesh directed retired IAS officer Reeta Harish Thakkar to appear before the court via video conferencing on August 3 and provide a detailed explanation for the prolonged delay in processing the prosecution proposal.
Thakkar retired from service on June 30, 2026, after serving as Secretary to the Tamil Nadu Public Department. Despite her retirement, the High Court observed that she remains answerable for administrative decisions made during her tenure.
The court categorically remarked that retirement cannot be treated as a shield against accountability. According to the judge, if delays occurred while an officer was in charge of a department, that responsibility continues even after the officer leaves government service.
The observation underlines the judiciary’s emphasis on ensuring that administrative accountability does not end merely because an official has retired.
Present Public Department Secretary Also Asked to Respond
The High Court did not stop with summoning the retired officer. It also directed the current Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Public Department to file a detailed affidavit explaining why the concerned files remained pending for nearly five months without any meaningful movement.
Justice Venkatesh sought a comprehensive explanation regarding the sequence of events that resulted in the proposal not being forwarded back to the Union Government after clarifications had already been furnished.
The court indicated that such unexplained administrative inaction raises serious concerns, especially when the matter involves prosecution in an alleged corruption case of considerable public importance.
Delay Revolves Around Sanction to Prosecute Two IAS Officers
At the heart of the controversy lies the mandatory prosecution sanction required to proceed against two senior IAS officers – K.S. Kandasamy and K. Vijaya Karthikeyan – who have been named as accused in the alleged tender irregularities case.
Under existing legal provisions, prosecution of serving or former public servants in certain corruption-related cases requires prior sanction from the competent authority. Since both officers belong to the IAS, approval from the Union Government is necessary before criminal proceedings can move ahead.
According to the status report placed before the High Court by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), the process had reached an advanced stage before unexpectedly coming to a halt.
The report explained that the proposal seeking prosecution sanction had already been forwarded to the Central Government. Subsequently, the Union Government sought certain clarifications regarding the proposal.
DVAC stated that it collected the required information and sent the clarifications to the Tamil Nadu Public Department on February 27, 2026 so that the proposal could be resubmitted to the Centre.
However, despite receiving the required documents, the proposal allegedly remained pending in the Public Department and was not sent back to the Union Government for several months.
This prolonged inaction became the central issue before the High Court.
Justice Venkatesh Questions Administrative Inaction
During the hearing, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh expressed serious concern over the lack of progress despite repeated judicial directions issued in the past.
The judge noted that no convincing explanation had been provided for why the files remained untouched for months after the necessary clarifications had already been supplied.
The court observed that such delays undermine the judicial process and create an impression that the prosecution
