Listen to this article:

On April 6, the Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment in Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. vs State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors, directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a preliminary enquiry into the award and execution of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2025. The Supreme Court-monitored CBI probe will cover contracts and work orders, including those awarded to firms and individuals related to Chief Minister Pema Khandu and his family. The court has also directed that the CBI may examine transactions outside this period if necessary to trace beneficial ownership, related-party links and fund flows.

This is not an ordinary administrative order. It is a rare judicial moment in which the highest court has looked at allegations involving a sitting chief minister, his family, public works, missing records, opaque procurement, non-tender processes and conflict of interest, and refused to let the matter be buried under procedural excuses.

The judgment begins with a constitutional reminder: “The state does not hold public resources as a private proprietor, but as a trustee on behalf of the people.” It further says that the award of public contracts must be transparent, fair and consistent with Article 14, and that decision-making must be free from “arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.”

The court’s strongest words came while rejecting the state’s argument that the share of contracts awarded to the chief minister’s relatives was “minuscule”. The court held that “the constitution does not tolerate a breach of public trust merely because the breach is numerically small”. It added that even a single award of public work through a process tainted by conflict of interest or deliberate bypassing of competition is an affront to Article 14.

This is the core of the matter. Corruption is not merely a question of quantum of money. It is a question of constitutional trust. If public office is used to facilitate private enrichment, the breach is not reduced because it is statistically presented as a small percentage of total expenditure. A constitutional wrong cannot be sanitised through arithmetic.

The court also rejected the state’s attempt to shift the evidentiary burden onto the petitioners. Its formulation deserves to be remembered: “The petitioners are not public record custodians. The state is.” The state awards contracts, maintains files, sanctions expenditure and holds the tender and work order record. When missing........

© The Wire