Chennai, Oct 13:
The Madras High Court on Monday questioned the apparent contradiction in the DMK’s position on the powers of the Governor while hearing a petition filed by former minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi seeking to quash a first information report (FIR) against him in a case involving alleged collection of money from private schools in the name of party funds.
Justice V Lakshminarayanan recalled the DMK’s earlier criticism of the Governor’s post, including its comparison of the office to a “goat’s beard”, while hearing arguments over whether the mandatory approval required under the Prevention of Corruption Act had been obtained from the appropriate authority. The court also asked when Mahesh intended to file a petition seeking anticipatory bail.
The issue arose after counsel for Mahesh argued that prior approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act had been obtained from a government secretary rather than the Governor. The counsel maintained that the required approval from Lok Bhavan had not been secured, raising a question over the validity of the proceedings against the former minister.
The judge questioned why the DMK, which had previously challenged the necessity and powers of the Governor’s office, was now insisting on approval from the same constitutional authority. The exchange brought a political dimension to the legal proceedings, although the central issue before the court remains the legality of the action initiated against Mahesh.
The case originated from a complaint lodged by the former general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association. The complaint alleged that its president, BT Arasukumar, and other office-bearers collected money from private school managements on the promise of securing no-objection certificates, licences, recognition and renewals, but failed to fulfil the assurances.
The FIR was initially registered under Sections 316(5) and 318(4), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Subsequently, the prosecution submitted an alteration report before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking to add Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and include Mahesh as an accused.
The former minister then approached the High Court seeking to quash the FIR. His plea challenges the proceedings against him, including the question of whether the necessary statutory approval was obtained before action was initiated.
In its counter-affidavit, the Chennai Central Crime Branch denied the allegation that the case had been registered after an unexplained delay of four years. It stated that the complaint was received on June 23, 2026, and the FIR was registered on June 27, 2026.
The investigating agency further stated that its investigation had revealed the collection of money from school managements in the name of party funds and that material had emerged indicating Mahesh’s alleged involvement in demands concerning private schools. These remain allegations under investigation and have not been established as findings of guilt.
The Central Crime Branch maintained that the Governor’s approval was not necessary in the circumstances and urged the court to reject Mahesh’s petition. It also opposed any order quashing the FIR or staying the investigation, arguing that such intervention could affect the collection and preservation of evidence.
The High Court has posted the matter to October 29, 2026. The proceedings will determine the legal issues raised in the petition, including the challenge to the FIR and the question of prior approval. The court’s observations during the hearing do not constitute a final determination of the allegations against the former minister.