New Delhi (July 15, 2026) – In a concise hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court chose not to disturb a Madras High Court order that restrains the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti‑Corruption (DVAC) from pursuing any coercive measures against former Tamil Nadu Public Works and Highways Minister E.V. Velu. The order, issued on July 9, remains in force until July 28, by which date the investigating agency must file its counter‑affidavit against Velu’s petition to quash the FIR dated June 26, 2026.

Background and Legal Trajectory

The FIR was lodged on June 24, 2026 after a complaint filed on April 20, 2022 by anti‑corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam. The complaint alleged massive corruption in the Comprehensive Road Infrastructure Development Programme (CRIDP), which allocated more than ₹5,000 crore to state highways but was purportedly riddled with mismanagement and fund diversion. The complaint named Velu, nine former officials of the Highways Department, a private contractor, and several unidentified individuals.

High Court’s Interim Relief

On July 9, the Madras High Court stayed a Look‑Out Circular (LoC) against Velu and ordered him to appear before the investigating officer on July 15, 2026. The court also noted that Velu was undergoing medical treatment in Singapore and was slated to return to India on July 12. Tamil Nadu’s state government, represented by senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, challenged the order, arguing that it effectively granted anticipatory bail without any such prayer in the petition.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, hearing the appeal filed by the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam‑led government, dismissed the challenge and reaffirmed the High Court’s interim protection. Justice Mehta clarified that the protection was conditional, not a blanket embargo, as Velu was expressly directed to appear for investigation on July 15. Justice Nath added that similar probes had been initiated during the previous DMK administration, underscoring that the case was not merely a political vendetta.

Implications and Next Steps

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Velu, warned that the prosecution appeared politically motivated and that more cases could follow after the change of government. While the bench declined to order the surrender of Velu’s passport, it left the matter open for the Tamil Nadu government to seek such relief from a competent court. The decision highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing anti‑corruption enforcement with procedural safeguards, and it may set a precedent for future high‑value infrastructure investigations across India.