Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 320
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.54 OF 2024
SAVE MON REGION
FEDERATION & ANR. …PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of
law, the exercise of public power is always subject to
constitutional discipline. The State does not hold public
resources as a private proprietor, but as a trustee on
behalf of the people. Whenever the State undertakes
the allocation of public resources, the award of public
contracts, or the execution of public works, it is bound
to act in a manner that is transparent, fair, and
consistent with the guarantee of equality under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The process through
which such decisions are taken must therefore be
capable of withstanding objective scrutiny and must
reflect a decision-making framework that is free from
arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of
Signature Not Verified
interest.
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.04.06
17:19:58 IST
Reason:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 1 of 35
2. Public confidence in governance rests upon the
assurance that opportunities created by the State are
administered through institutions that respect
equality, integrity, and accountability. Where the
distribution of public resources is clouded by
allegations of nepotism, patronage, or opaque decision-
making, the issue is not merely one of administrative
irregularity. It raises concerns that go to the heart of
the constitutional promise that State action shall be
fair, impartial, and guided by reason. Constitutional
courts, as guardians of that promise, are therefore
required to ensure that the exercise of public authority
remains anchored in legality, transparency, and
institutional accountability.
3. The present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India has been instituted by the
petitioners, namely, Save Mon Region Federation, a
civil society organisation working for the residents of
the Mon region in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, and
Mr. Joddik Tali, stated to be its authorised
representative and a resident of the State. The petition
has been filed in public interest, alleging that the award
and execution of public works contracts in the State
have been marked by arbitrariness, favouritism and
serious departures from the governing financial and
procurement norms, including allegations of
preferential allotment of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to
6 and to firms or individuals stated to be related to
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 2 of 35
them. On that basis, the petitioners seek, inter alia, a
direction for an independent investigation by a Special
Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as “SIT”)
and or the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter
referred to as “CBI”), along with such further
consequential directions as this Court may deem fit.
4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as
follows:
4.1. The gravamen of the petition is an allegation of
systemic illegality and arbitrariness in public
procurement and award of public works in the State
of Arunachal Pradesh, with a particular emphasis on
the award of works to firms and individuals stated to
be closely connected with respondent No. 4 (the
present Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh) and
respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and to their close political
associates. The petitioners assert that the pattern
reflected in the listed works indicates nepotism,
conflict of interest and abuse of official position,
resulting in diversion of public contracts to a narrow
set of beneficiaries.
4.2. In support of the above, the petitioners allege, inter
alia, that several works were awarded through work
orders without an open and competitive tender
process, including works of substantial value, and
that the record placed by the State is incomplete as
it does not disclose the underlying tender
documents, comparative statements, approvals, file
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 3 of 35
notings and other material particulars needed to
demonstrate fairness and transparency. The
petitioners also rely upon procurement norms which
emphasise transparency, competition, fairness, and
avoidance of conflict of interest, and contend that
even where general procurement rules are stated not
to apply proprio vigore to State Governments, the
State’s own sanction conditions often require
adherence to procedural formalities and competitive
bidding.
4.3. As regards the period of the alleged irregularities, the
petitioners place reliance upon a range of works
spanning multiple years. They rely, in particular,
upon earlier allegations examined through audit
scrutiny, and also allege continuation of the pattern
in later years. For purposes of affidavits and
compilation of details directed by this Court, the
controversy has been addressed with reference to the
period between 2015 and 2025, and the petitioners
contend that even within that period the material
suggests persistent procedural departures and
preferential treatment.
4.4. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioners seek
directions for an independent investigation,
including constitution of a SIT or a Court-monitored
investigation by the CBI, asserting that the
allegations implicate public faith in governance and
the integrity of public expenditure, and therefore
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 4 of 35
warrant scrutiny beyond departmental or internal
mechanisms.
4.5. The present writ petition also bears a close
connection with SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010, titled
Voluntary Arunachal Sena v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and Others, which arose out of an earlier
public interest litigation before the High Court. By
order dated 20.03.2024, this Court disposed of the
said special leave petition and directed that the
complaint or complaints on which the proceeding
was founded be examined by the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as
“the CAG”).
4.6. In the said order, this Court also took note that
interlocutory applications seeking interference in
respect of certain subsequent contracts were not
being examined in those proceedings, as an
independent writ petition had been filed in relation
to such subsequent set of contracts, which is the
present writ petition. Pursuant to the directions
issued thereafter in these proceedings, the CAG has
filed its final report dated 21.07.2025 in relation to
the nine allegations which formed part of the record
in SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010. The petitioners rely
upon the report to contend that it reflects repeated
departures from tender based procurement and
serious gaps in official documentation. The State, on
the other hand, relies upon the portions of the report
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 5 of 35
which record verification of payments with reference
to measurement books and joint physical verification
of certain works.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the pleadings, affidavits and the
material placed on record, the principal issue that
arises for consideration is whether the allegations and
the prima facie material relating to the award and
execution of public works contracts, including the
asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and
competitive tendering, gaps in official documentation,
and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to
6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a
direction by this Court for an independent investigation
by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so,
the scope of such investigation and the consequential
directions required to secure the integrity of the
process.
Applicable standard for invoking Court-directed
investigation
6. The petitioners seek a direction for investigation by the
CBI or, in the alternative, the constitution of a SIT. It is
well settled that, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
32 of the Constitution, this Court possesses the
constitutional authority to direct that an investigation
be carried out by an agency other than the ordinary
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 6 of 35
State investigating machinery, including the CBI,
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. At the
same time, the jurisprudence of this Court has
consistently emphasised that such power is to be
exercised with restraint.
7. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
1
Democratic Rights , the Constitutional Bench of this
Court held that a direction by a constitutional court to
the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence within the
territory of a State is not barred merely for want of State
consent, and such a direction does not violate the
federal structure or the doctrine of separation of
powers. The Court also underscored that constitutional
courts, as protectors of civil liberties, have not only the
power but also the obligation to protect fundamental
rights, including under Article 21. However, the same
decision cautions that the very amplitude of the power
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India
requires great care in its exercise. It has been reiterated
that a direction to the CBI is not to be made as a matter
of routine or merely because allegations have been
levelled against the local police. The extraordinary
power is to be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and
in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
lend credibility and instil confidence in the
investigation, or where the incident has wider
ramifications, or where such a course is necessary for
1
(2010) 3 SCC 571
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 7 of 35
doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental
rights. The relevant portion from the judgement is as
follows:
“69. In the final analysis, our answer to the
question referred is that a direction by the High
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a
cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territory of a State without
the consent of that State will neither impinge
upon the federal structure of the Constitution
nor violate the doctrine of separation of power
and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors
of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the
High Courts have not only the power and
jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in
general and under Article 21 of the Constitution
in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these constitutional
powers. The very plenitude of the power under
the said articles requires great caution in its
exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
or not such power should be exercised but time
and again it has been reiterated that such an
order is not to be passed as a matter of routine
or merely because a party has levelled some
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 8 of 35
allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or
where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be
flooded with a large number of cases and with
limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the
process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations.”
8. The governing principle is that transfer of investigation
to the CBI is justified only in rare and exceptional cases
where it is necessary to do justice between the parties
and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where
the investigation by the State police lacks credibility
and it is necessary to secure a fair, honest and complete
investigation. Illustratively, such transfer may be
warranted where high officials of the State are involved,
where the accusation is against top officials of the
investigating agency such that they may influence the
course of investigation, or where the investigation is
prima facie found to be tainted or biased.
9. These principles also make it clear that this Court,
while considering a request for CBI investigation or
constitution of an SIT, does not undertake an
adjudication on culpability. The Court examines
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 9 of 35
whether the material placed discloses a prima facie
case which necessitates entrustment of investigation to
an independent agency so that the rule of law is upheld
and the investigative process commands confidence,
particularly where the status or authority of persons
implicated may reasonably give rise to apprehensions
about the impartiality of the ordinary investigative
process. In determining whether the extraordinary
jurisdiction to entrust investigation to the CBI should
be exercised, the Court ordinarily examines whether
the material placed before it discloses (i) a prima facie
case raising serious questions of legality, (ii)
circumstances suggesting that investigation by the
ordinary State machinery may not inspire confidence
where high public functionaries are implicated, and (iii)
the necessity of an independent inquiry to preserve
public confidence in the rule of law
Constitutional discipline in public procurement
10. The award of public contracts is an exercise of public
power. It involves the expenditure of public funds and
the conferment of economic benefit by the State. Such
decisions are not insulated as matters of private
contract. They are subject to the discipline of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, because the State must act
fairly, transparently, and in a non-arbitrary manner
when it distributes public resources.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 10 of 35
11. This Court has repeatedly recognised that State owned
or public owned resources cannot be dealt with at the
absolute discretion of the executive. Public interest is
the paramount consideration. One of the ordinary and
safest methods of securing that public interest is by
inviting competition through tenders. A departure from
competitive tendering may be permissible in a limited
set of situations, but only when the departure is
justified by rational and recorded reasons that do not
suggest discrimination. In Sachidanand Pandey v.
2
State of W.B. , this Court emphasised that
appearance of public justice is as important as doing
justice, and nothing should be done which gives an
appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism. That principle
has particular force in matters of public contracting,
because secrecy, discretion and personal proximity are
precisely the conditions in which abuse of power
becomes difficult to detect.
12. The constitutional requirement is not satisfied merely
because a work exists on the ground or because an
authority asserts that funds were utilised. Public
procurement has two distinct dimensions. One is the
physical execution of work. The other is the integrity of
the process by which public money is committed and
paid out. A project may be visible at the site and yet the
procurement decision may still be unconstitutional if it
was arrived at through an arbitrary, opaque or
2
(1987) 2 SCC 295
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 11 of 35
conflicted process. It is the decision-making process
which must be capable of scrutiny through
contemporaneous records, including the tender trail
where tender is required, and the recorded justification
where tender is dispensed with.
13. The discipline that governs State largesse reinforces
this position. The State and its instrumentalities
cannot confer benefits according to the whims of any
political or administrative functionary. In Akhil
3
Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. , this
Court held that every decision to confer benefit must be
founded on a sound, transparent and discernible policy
and must be implemented by a non-discriminatory
method, free from favouritism and nepotism. The same
understanding informs the statement in Centre for
4
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India , that
whenever a contract or licence is granted the public
authority must adopt a transparent and fair method so
that eligible persons have a fair opportunity of
competition. These decisions do not lay down tendering
as a mechanical ritual. They treat transparency and fair
opportunity as constitutional essentials in the
disposition of public resources.
14. These principles are especially stringent where the
allegation is of conflict of interest or related party
benefit. In such situations, the constitutional concern
3
(2011) 5 SCC 29
4
(2012) 3 SCC 1
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 12 of 35
is not limited to whether the State obtained value for
money. The concern is whether public power was used,
directly or indirectly, to confer private advantage, or
whether the process was structured in a manner that
excluded competition and enabled a preferred
beneficiary. Once such a concern arises on the record,
it is not answered by showing that the overall
percentage of work awarded to related parties is
numerically small. A constitutional violation in public
contracting is not diluted by statistics. Even a single
instance, if established, undermines equality, the rule
of law and public confidence in fair administration.
15. At the same time, it must be emphasized that judicial
review in this field does not convert the Court into a
tender approving authority. The Court does not sit to
choose the contractor or to re-evaluate technical bids.
The Court examines whether the process conforms to
constitutional standards of fairness, transparency and
non-arbitrariness, and whether the record supports the
decision. Where the complaint is not about comparative
merits of bidders but about systemic opacity, repeated
departures from competitive methods, missing records
and alleged conflict of interest, the matter travels
beyond an ordinary contractual grievance and raises
questions of constitutional accountability.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 13 of 35
Procurement deviations and missing records as red flags
16. A separate but closely connected aspect concerns the
legal significance of a departure from competitive
tendering and the non-availability of core procurement
records. Competitive tendering is not an inflexible
ritual, but it remains the ordinary method by which the
State demonstrates fairness and secures public
confidence in the disposition of public resources. When
the State dispenses with an open tender, the exception
must be strictly conditioned. The decision to depart
from competition must be supported by reasons
recorded by the competent authority, and those
reasons must be rational and capable of objective
scrutiny. In administrative law, the insistence on
reasons is a restraint on arbitrariness and a safeguard
of transparency, and it enables effective judicial review.
The requirement of reasons is not satisfied by broad
assertions made after the event. Even where the order
itself does not contain a detailed narration, the record
must disclose why the ordinary rule was departed from
and what safeguards were adopted to ensure that the
departure did not become a vehicle for favouritism. This
Court has recognised that, at the least, the record
should disclose reasons, even if those reasons are brief.
17. The non production of core records such as tender
documents, comparative statements, evaluation
material, approvals, measurement records and
vouchers raises a distinct and serious concern. The
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 14 of 35
State is the custodian of public records and it is
expected to maintain them in a manner that makes
public expenditure traceable and accountable. When
material records that ought to exist are not produced,
the Court is not required to treat that circumstance as
innocuous. The law also permits a court to draw a
presumption against a party that withholds evidence
within its power, and that principle applies with greater
force where the custodian is the State.
18. It must also be emphasised that a physical trace of a
project, by itself, does not answer the constitutional
question. The distinction between physical execution
and legality of the procurement process assumes
particular importance where the State seeks to rely on
the mere existence of completed works as a defence.
One is whether some work was executed. The other is
whether the process by which public money was
committed and paid out was fair, competitive where
competition was required, and free from conflict of
interest. Judicial review in contract matters focuses on
the decision making process and tests it for legality and
absence of arbitrariness, bias and mala fides.
19. For these reasons, where the material placed before the
Court indicates repeated resort to non-competitive
methods without a demonstrable record of reasons, or
indicates gaps in the record trail that prevent
meaningful scrutiny, the matter travels beyond a
routine contractual grievance. Such features become
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 15 of 35
relevant indicators for determining whether an
independent investigation is required, so that
responsibility for deviations and missing records may
be fixed and the integrity of public procurement is
secured in accordance with the rule of law.
Appreciation of the record in the present case
20. The pleadings in the writ petition proceed on the basis
that the petitioners have placed on record a list of
public works, across multiple departments and
schemes, which according to them reveals a sustained
pattern of award of contracts and work orders to a
narrow set of entities claimed to be closely connected
with Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioners allege that
the works were repeatedly awarded without an open
and competitive tender process, that the requirement
of disclosing and addressing conflicts of interest was
bypassed, and that the procurement record does not
contain the contemporaneous decision trail that would
ordinarily demonstrate fairness and transparency.
21. In particular, the petitioners identify certain firms and
individuals as forming the core of the alleged pattern.
The petitioners allege that contracts were awarded to
firms stated to be owned or controlled by the close
family members of Respondent No. 4, who is the
present Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, and to
entities stated to be owned by Respondent Nos. 5 and
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 16 of 35
6 and by close political associates. The petitioners
contend that the scale and frequency of such awards,
when viewed together, disclose a prima facie case of
nepotism, conflict of interest and abuse of public office.
22. The petitioners further allege that a significant number
of the works were executed through the work order
system without tender, including works of substantial
value. The petitioners assert that the work order
method was not employed as an exception justified by
genuine urgency or special circumstances, but was
used in a manner that displaced competition and
facilitated repeated awards to a preferred class of
contractors. The petitioners also contend that even
where a tender is stated to have been issued, the
contemporaneous material that would ordinarily
support the award, including comparative statements,
evaluation records and file notings, has not been
produced.
23. The record also includes the final report filed by the
CAG on 21.07.2025 in relation to the directions arising
from SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010. The final audit report
deals with nine allegations and contains findings which
are material for appreciating the nature of the issues
raised before us. For example, in relation to the award
of carriage contract work for transportation of 24,800
MT of rice under Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana,
the audit records that the Department concerned did
not invite tender or quotation, though four firms
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 17 of 35
submitted offers, and the work order was issued to the
firm selected as the lowest bidder. The audit also
records that the proprietor of the concerned firm was
Shri Jambey Tashi as alleged in the special leave
petition, but that there was no information on record
regarding his family relationship with Shri Dorjee
Khandu. The audit further notes that the Department
verified claims on distances on the basis of notifications
issued by Deputy Commissioners and that, on cross-
verification, it did not find differences between the
contractor’s claims and the supporting records. At the
same time, the audit records that monthly progress
reports contemplated under the scheme guidelines
were not prepared and that details for certain districts
were not furnished, and it also notes that joint physical
verification was undertaken in respect of a sample of
works shown as executed.
24. More significantly, across several other allegations, the
audit report records repeated features that have a
direct bearing on procurement integrity and record
accountability. The audit records multiple instances of
execution of works without call of tender, and it
repeatedly notes that the basis for selection of
contractors and the reasons for dispensing with tender
were not on record. The audit report also records
several instances where vouchers were not produced,
or where crucial tender-related documentation was
stated to be unavailable. Illustratively, the audit
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 18 of 35
records that for the NLCPR project relating to
improvement and re-alignment of the porter track from
Jang to Sulungthi, vouchers for an amount of Rs.
107.11 lakhs were not produced, and for the NLCPR
project relating to construction of the porter track from
Nuranang to Mago, vouchers for an amount of Rs.
23.20 lakhs were not produced. In the NLCPR project
relating to construction of the road from Lhou Nallah to
Mukto CO Headquarters via Gomkeling and Serjong,
the audit records that vouchers for an amount of Rs.
12.24 crores were not produced and that documents
relating to comparative bid statements and award of
work where tender notice was issued were not made
available, resulting in the audit being unable to probe
the award further. These are not minor clerical
omissions. They directly affect the traceability of public
expenditure and the ability of the audit process to verify
whether procurement decisions were taken in
accordance with law. They go to the heart of whether
the expenditure is traceable and whether the
procurement decision is capable of objective scrutiny.
25. The audit report similarly records that in the project
relating to improvement and upgradation of road
network in Tawang township, a large part of the work
was executed through multiple contractors without call
of tender and vouchers for a part of the expenditure
were not produced. In the project relating to providing
water supply in Tawang township, the audit records
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 19 of 35
that while certain components were put to tender,
several other components were executed without call of
tender, and that vouchers for an amount of Rs. 273.92
lakhs were not made available. In the allegation relating
to the corpus fund of Rs. 23 crores sanctioned to the
Bodhi Language and Literature Promotional Society,
the audit records that the corpus fund remained as a
fixed deposit, but that the accrued interest amounting
to several crores of rupees was transferred to a savings
account and the audit could not directly confirm its
utilisation due to lack of documentation linking
expenditures to specific end uses. The audit further
records that as per information furnished by the
Registrar of Societies, the Society never renewed its
registration after the initial registration in 1993. In
relation to the PMGSY projects, the audit report records
that in certain projects works were executed without
inviting tender by engaging a large number of
contractors, and in certain other projects, although
tenders were stated to have been issued and awarded,
the relevant comparative statements or award
documentation was stated to be unavailable, thereby
disabling scrutiny of whether competition was fair and
how the award decision was taken.
26. The petitioners filed an additional affidavit after the
CAG report was on record, wherein they expressly
dispute and criticise parts of the audit conclusions. The
petitioners contend that the work order system, even
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 20 of 35
where used for so-called petty or emergent works, does
not dispense with statutory requirements such as fair
opportunity and recorded justification, and that the
absence of tenders and the absence of complete records
cannot be normalised as an administrative practice.
The petitioners also contend that the audit’s reliance
on joint physical verification cannot be treated as a
substitute for verifying adherence to procurement
norms and technical specifications, and that physical
existence of a work does not answer questions of
conflict of interest, distortion of competition, record
tampering, or unexplained expenditure. The petitioners
further allege that the State’s disclosure in its
additional affidavit is incomplete, that certain works
referred to by the petitioners were omitted, and that the
State did not furnish the contemporaneous
procurement record, including tender committee
material, comparative statements and file findings.
27. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, in its reply, has sought
to meet the petitioners’ case on a broad platform. The
State asserts that the CAG is a constitutional authority
and that the audit report is now within the domain of
constitutional and legislative scrutiny. The State
further asserts that award of works through the work
order system is not peculiar to the respondents alleged
by the petitioners, and that the work order system is
rooted in the geographical and socio-economic
conditions prevailing in Arunachal Pradesh. The State
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 21 of 35
explains the process by which administrative approval
and expenditure sanction is granted, followed by
technical sanction, and states that works valued below
Rs. 50.00 lakhs are executed on work order basis in
terms of the statutory framework, while works above
that value are ordinarily executed through tenders. The
State relies upon the Arunachal Pradesh District Based
Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives,
Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, including
Section 3A, which contemplates that works costing up
to Rs. 50.00 lakhs, for which no special technical know-
how is required and subject to the statutory conditions,
may be given through work order without tender. The
State denies that Section 3A has been violated and
asserts that the petitioners have not placed explicit
proof of such violation. The State also asserts that a
large proportion of the works referred to by the
petitioners were awarded through tender and that the
petition is being projected beyond the factual
foundation laid by the petitioners themselves.
28. The State has also placed on record a compilation
which it states has been prepared across seven major
works departments, covering the period 01.04.2014 to
31.12.2025, and including a summary of tenders and
work orders, and a summary of the percentage of works
awarded to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms related to
them. The State asserts that the share of such awards
is miniscule in terms of both tenders and work orders
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 22 of 35
and places reliance on departmental percentages which
include figures such as 0.32 per cent and 0.07 per cent
for the Department of Power, 0.03 per cent and 0.01
per cent for the Public Health Engineering and Water
Supply Department, 1.03 per cent and 0.08 per cent for
the Rural Works Department, 0.79 per cent and 0.06
per cent for the Water Resource Department, 0.80 per
cent and 0.26 per cent for the Public Works
Department, 1.20 per cent and 0.00 per cent for the
Department of Hydro-Power Development, and 0.37 per
cent and 0.36 per cent for the Department of Urban
Development.
29. Having considered the record at this stage, we find that
the petitioners’ allegations are not confined to a mere
grievance about the outcome of a tender. They raise
issues that go to the integrity of public procurement
and the traceability of public expenditure. The audit
report, the petitioners’ additional affidavit, and the
State’s replies together disclose repeated resort to non-
tender methods, repeated absence of recorded reasons
for such resort, and repeated non-production of
vouchers and tender-related records in relation to high
value public projects. The State’s reliance on aggregate
percentages does not, by itself, answer the concerns
arising from specific instances where the procurement
trail is incomplete or absent. These are matters that
require structured investigation into the decision-
making process, the custody and availability of records,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 23 of 35
the reasons for deviations, the identification of
beneficiaries and related-party links, and the
ascertainment of whether any cognizable offences or
other legal breaches are disclosed.
Problems with the State’s arguments
30. We are unable to accept the attempt of the State to
answer allegations of this nature by reference to broad
generalities. The first response of the State is that the
CAG is a constitutional authority and that its report
now lies within the domain of the Governor and the
State Legislature. That submission proceeds on a
misconception. Legislative scrutiny through the Public
Accounts Committee is an important mechanism of
financial accountability, but it does not displace the
constitutional role of this Court when allegations before
it implicate arbitrariness in public procurement,
possible conflict of interest, and prima facie misuse of
public office. The proceedings before this Court are not
rendered infructuous merely because an audit report is
also capable of being examined in the legislative
domain. The CAG report has been called for and placed
on record in these proceedings pursuant to orders of
this Court, and it forms part of the material that must
be assessed for the limited purpose of determining
whether an independent investigation is warranted.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 24 of 35
31. The second response of the State is to normalise the
work order system by attributing it to the geographical
and socio-economic conditions of Arunachal Pradesh
and to rely upon the Arunachal Pradesh District Based
Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives,
Development and Promotional) Act, 2015. We do not
doubt that the State may, consistent with law, design
procurement modalities that respond to local
conditions. We also accept that certain works may be
executed through work orders within the statutory
framework. However, what is under scrutiny in these
proceedings is not the existence of a work order system
as a concept. The concern is the manner of its
deployment in relation to public works and the
procurement trail that accompanies it. A statutory
framework permitting limited dispensation with tender
does not authorise unstructured discretion. It does not
dilute the requirements of Article 14. It does not permit
repeated departures from competition without recorded
reasons. It does not permit the State to proceed without
a decision trail that makes the award capable of
objective scrutiny, particularly where allegations of
related-party benefit are made.
32. The third response of the State is that the petitioners
have failed to produce “explicit proof” of violation of
Section 3A of the Act of 2015. That submission reverses
the constitutional burden. The petitioners are not
public record custodians. The State is. The State
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 25 of 35
awards contracts, maintains the files, sanctions
expenditure, records the reasons for deviations, and
holds the tender and work order record. When serious
allegations of unfairness and conflict of interest arise
and the record itself shows gaps in essential
documents, the Court cannot place the entire onus on
the petitioners to establish the illegality by materials
they do not control. At the prima facie stage, what is
material is whether the record discloses circumstances
that warrant an independent investigation. Missing
vouchers, missing comparative statements, and
absence of recorded reasons are not neutral facts. They
are indicia that the State must answer and that require
independent verification.
33. The fourth response of the State is to rely on aggregate
percentages and to assert that the share of works
awarded to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms related to
them is “minuscule”. We are not persuaded that such
arithmetic can answer the constitutional concern. The
Constitution does not tolerate a breach of public trust
merely because the breach is numerically small when
measured against the total universe of State
expenditure. Even a single instance of award of public
work through a process tainted by conflict of interest,
or by a deliberate bypass of competition, constitutes an
affront to Article 14. A low percentage cannot become a
licence. It cannot be a defence to nepotism. It cannot
neutralise the illegality that attaches to an award which
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 26 of 35
is not supported by a transparent process and
contemporaneous records.
34. Moreover, the percentage argument is inherently
capable of masking what the Court is required to
examine. A Statewide denominator can conceal
concentration within a district, concentration within a
particular department, concentration in high-value
projects, or concentration within a small set of
contractors. Even assuming that the share is small in
aggregate, the constitutional question remains whether
public power has been used to confer private benefit,
whether open competition has been displaced without
justification, and whether the decision trail is intact.
The State’s compilation, which is presented as a
statistical answer, does not address the absence of
tender records and vouchers noted in the audit
material. It also does not answer why, where tender is
claimed, comparative statements and related records
are unavailable.
35. We also find it difficult to accept the State’s posture that
its compliance is complete because it has furnished
details only with reference to the works listed by the
petitioners. The orders of this Court required a detailed
disclosure and a transparent response on the contracts
in issue, including those relating to Respondent Nos. 4
to 6 or firms related to them, and the subsequent order
clarified that the scope was not confined to a single
district. The State cannot choose a narrow construction
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 27 of 35
of disclosure obligations when the controversy
concerns the integrity of public procurement. In any
event, where the State asserts that the petition is
“Tawang-centric”, it is still obliged to answer, with
complete procurement records, how the questioned
awards were made, why tender was dispensed with,
and why essential documents are missing.
36. Ultimately, what emerges from the record is that the
State does not deny that the work order system has
been used extensively. The audit material reflects
multiple instances of non-tender execution and missing
documentation. The petitioners allege related-party
benefit and conflict of interest. In response, the State
offers broad justifications, invokes percentages, and
disclaims comment on the audit report. These answers
do not meet the gravity of the allegations. They do not
restore the confidence that a matter of this nature
requires. They reinforce the need for an investigation by
an independent agency that can trace the decision-
making process, locate responsibility for missing
records, and examine whether the pattern disclosed is
an outcome of lawful administration or an abuse of
public office.
Necessity of an independent investigation by the CBI
37. Having regard to the principles set out above and the
material placed on record, we are satisfied that this is
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 28 of 35
a fit case where an independent investigation is
necessary. The record discloses repeated resort to non-
tender methods in relation to public works, repeated
absence of recorded reasons explaining why
competition was dispensed with, and repeated non-
production of vouchers and tender-related
documentation in relation to projects of substantial
value. Such circumstances raise legitimate concerns
not merely of administrative irregularity but of possible
abuse of public office, manipulation of procurement
processes, and concealment or destruction of official
records, matters which require investigation by an
independent agency vested with statutory powers of
criminal investigation. The petitioners further allege
that a significant cluster of such awards has accrued
to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or to firms and individuals
related to them, thereby raising a serious question of
conflict of interest and abuse of public office. These are
not matters that can be left to be answered by broad
affidavits or by statistical summaries. They require a
structured investigation into the decision-making
process, the manner of selection of contractors, the
justification for deviations from tender-based
procurement, and the integrity and custody of public
records.
38. The final report filed by the CAG has evidentiary
relevance in this context, though it is not determinative
of criminal culpability. The audit identifies repeated
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 29 of 35
gaps in the documentary trail, including non-
availability of vouchers and non-availability of tender
evaluation material, and in several instances it records
that it could not probe the award process further for
want of essential records. These features, when read
with the petitioners’ assertions of related-party benefit
and with the State’s inability to furnish a complete
contemporaneous procurement trail, provide a
sufficient prima facie foundation for entrustment of
investigation to an independent agency.
39. We are also mindful that the allegations in the present
proceedings concern public contracting under the
authority of the State and are directed, in material part,
against persons who occupy, or are stated to be closely
connected with those who occupy, high constitutional
and political office in the State. In such circumstances,
leaving the matter to be investigated by agencies that
function under the administrative control of the State
would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension, in
the public mind, about institutional independence. The
credibility of the process is as important as its eventual
outcome. Where a case concerns the integrity of public
procurement and involves allegations of conflict of
interest at the highest levels, an investigation must be
not only fair but must also appear fair.
40. A CAG audit is not designed to perform the role of a
criminal investigation. An audit may verify accounts,
test compliance, and record deficiencies. It cannot,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 30 of 35
however, conduct searches and seizures, trace
beneficial ownership and related-party links through
layered entities, examine the money trail, identify the
persons responsible for custody and disappearance of
files, or determine whether the facts disclose the
commission of cognizable offences. These are functions
that lie within the domain of an investigating agency
empowered by law.
41. We have considered whether constitution of an SIT
under the supervision of the State would suffice. In the
facts of the present case, we are of the view that the
nature of allegations, the institutional proximity of the
persons against whom allegations are made, and the
recurring deficiencies in the procurement record make
it necessary to entrust the investigation to an agency
which is institutionally independent of the State
executive. The CBI is the appropriate agency for this
purpose.
42. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate that CBI shall
register a preliminary enquiry forthwith and shall
conduct a time-bound investigation into the award and
execution of the public works contracts and work
orders which form the subject matter of this writ
petition and the affidavits filed in these proceedings.
The investigation shall include examination of the
procurement process, the reasons and approvals for
dispensing with tender, the availability and custody of
records including vouchers, comparative statements
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 31 of 35
and file notings, the identity of beneficial owners of the
contractor entities, the fund flow and payments made,
and any other connected matter necessary to ascertain
whether any illegality or cognizable offence is disclosed.
43. Before issuing directions for investigation, it is also
necessary to clarify the temporal scope of the inquiry.
During the course of these proceedings, affidavits and
compilations of records were directed to be furnished
with reference to the period 2015 to 2025, and the State
itself has placed materials covering substantially the
same timeframe. The allegations in the writ petition,
the audit scrutiny, and the record placed before this
Court together indicate that the questioned pattern of
procurement practices is alleged to have occurred
across multiple departments during this period. In
order to ensure that the investigation is both effective
and structured, while at the same time avoiding an
unbounded or roving inquiry into earlier periods for
which no material has been placed before this Court, it
is appropriate that the investigation be confined to the
period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2025.
Conclusion
44. For the reasons recorded above, and in exercise of the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 32 of 35
I. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) shall
register a preliminary enquiry within two weeks from
the date of this judgment and shall proceed in
accordance with law.
II. The preliminary enquiry and the consequential
investigation, if any, shall cover the award and
execution of public works contracts and work orders
in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the period from
01.01.2015 to 31.12.2025, including the works and
compilations placed on record in these proceedings.
The CBI shall, in particular, examine awards made
to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to firms or individuals
related to them, and shall examine the procurement
process, the reasons and approvals for dispensing
with open tender, the compliance with the applicable
statutory and statutory requirements, the
availability and custody of records, the flow of funds
and payments, and such other connected aspects as
are necessary to ascertain whether any illegality or
cognizable offence is disclosed.
III. The CBI shall not be precluded from examining
transactions outside the above period to the limited
extent necessary for tracing beneficial ownership,
related-party links, fund flows, or other connected
circumstances that bear upon the transactions
within the above period.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 33 of 35
IV. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and all its concerned
departments, authorities and instrumentalities shall
cooperate fully with the CBI. They shall, within four
weeks from the date of this judgment, make available
all relevant records, including sanction orders,
administrative approvals, technical sanctions,
tenders, comparative statements, tender committee
records, work orders, agreements, measurement
books, bills, vouchers, utilisation certificates,
completion certificates, and all electronic data
relating to e-procurement and payments.
V. The Chief Secretary, State of Arunachal Pradesh
shall, within one week from the date of this
judgment, designate a nodal officer for coordination
with the CBI, and each of the concerned
departments shall also designate a nodal officer
within the same period. The nodal officers shall
ensure timely production of records and shall
facilitate access to offices, servers and record rooms
as may be required.
VI. The State of Arunachal Pradesh shall ensure that no
record, physical or electronic, relevant to the subject
matter of the enquiry and investigation is destroyed,
altered, or rendered inaccessible. The Chief
Secretary shall issue necessary directions to all
concerned departments within one week from the
date of this judgment to secure preservation of
records and electronic logs.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 34 of 35
VII. The CBI shall file a status report before this Court
within sixteen weeks from the date of this judgment.
45. We clarify that the observations made in this judgment
are for the purposes of deciding whether an
independent investigation is warranted. They shall not
be construed as findings on the merits of any
allegation, and they shall not prejudice any person in
any proceedings that may arise.
46. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
………………………………..J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 06, 2026
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 35 of 35
2026 INSC 320
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.54 OF 2024
SAVE MON REGION
FEDERATION & ANR. …PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of
law, the exercise of public power is always subject to
constitutional discipline. The State does not hold public
resources as a private proprietor, but as a trustee on
behalf of the people. Whenever the State undertakes
the allocation of public resources, the award of public
contracts, or the execution of public works, it is bound
to act in a manner that is transparent, fair, and
consistent with the guarantee of equality under Article
14 of the Constitution of India. The process through
which such decisions are taken must therefore be
capable of withstanding objective scrutiny and must
reflect a decision-making framework that is free from
arbitrariness, favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of
Signature Not Verified
interest.
Digitally signed by
SHIPRA NARANG
Date: 2026.04.06
17:19:58 IST
Reason:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 1 of 35
2. Public confidence in governance rests upon the
assurance that opportunities created by the State are
administered through institutions that respect
equality, integrity, and accountability. Where the
distribution of public resources is clouded by
allegations of nepotism, patronage, or opaque decision-
making, the issue is not merely one of administrative
irregularity. It raises concerns that go to the heart of
the constitutional promise that State action shall be
fair, impartial, and guided by reason. Constitutional
courts, as guardians of that promise, are therefore
required to ensure that the exercise of public authority
remains anchored in legality, transparency, and
institutional accountability.
3. The present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India has been instituted by the
petitioners, namely, Save Mon Region Federation, a
civil society organisation working for the residents of
the Mon region in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, and
Mr. Joddik Tali, stated to be its authorised
representative and a resident of the State. The petition
has been filed in public interest, alleging that the award
and execution of public works contracts in the State
have been marked by arbitrariness, favouritism and
serious departures from the governing financial and
procurement norms, including allegations of
preferential allotment of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to
6 and to firms or individuals stated to be related to
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 2 of 35
them. On that basis, the petitioners seek, inter alia, a
direction for an independent investigation by a Special
Investigation Team (hereinafter referred to as “SIT”)
and or the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter
referred to as “CBI”), along with such further
consequential directions as this Court may deem fit.
4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as
follows:
4.1. The gravamen of the petition is an allegation of
systemic illegality and arbitrariness in public
procurement and award of public works in the State
of Arunachal Pradesh, with a particular emphasis on
the award of works to firms and individuals stated to
be closely connected with respondent No. 4 (the
present Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh) and
respondent Nos. 5 and 6, and to their close political
associates. The petitioners assert that the pattern
reflected in the listed works indicates nepotism,
conflict of interest and abuse of official position,
resulting in diversion of public contracts to a narrow
set of beneficiaries.
4.2. In support of the above, the petitioners allege, inter
alia, that several works were awarded through work
orders without an open and competitive tender
process, including works of substantial value, and
that the record placed by the State is incomplete as
it does not disclose the underlying tender
documents, comparative statements, approvals, file
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 3 of 35
notings and other material particulars needed to
demonstrate fairness and transparency. The
petitioners also rely upon procurement norms which
emphasise transparency, competition, fairness, and
avoidance of conflict of interest, and contend that
even where general procurement rules are stated not
to apply proprio vigore to State Governments, the
State’s own sanction conditions often require
adherence to procedural formalities and competitive
bidding.
4.3. As regards the period of the alleged irregularities, the
petitioners place reliance upon a range of works
spanning multiple years. They rely, in particular,
upon earlier allegations examined through audit
scrutiny, and also allege continuation of the pattern
in later years. For purposes of affidavits and
compilation of details directed by this Court, the
controversy has been addressed with reference to the
period between 2015 and 2025, and the petitioners
contend that even within that period the material
suggests persistent procedural departures and
preferential treatment.
4.4. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioners seek
directions for an independent investigation,
including constitution of a SIT or a Court-monitored
investigation by the CBI, asserting that the
allegations implicate public faith in governance and
the integrity of public expenditure, and therefore
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 4 of 35
warrant scrutiny beyond departmental or internal
mechanisms.
4.5. The present writ petition also bears a close
connection with SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010, titled
Voluntary Arunachal Sena v. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and Others, which arose out of an earlier
public interest litigation before the High Court. By
order dated 20.03.2024, this Court disposed of the
said special leave petition and directed that the
complaint or complaints on which the proceeding
was founded be examined by the Comptroller and
Auditor General of India (hereinafter referred to as
“the CAG”).
4.6. In the said order, this Court also took note that
interlocutory applications seeking interference in
respect of certain subsequent contracts were not
being examined in those proceedings, as an
independent writ petition had been filed in relation
to such subsequent set of contracts, which is the
present writ petition. Pursuant to the directions
issued thereafter in these proceedings, the CAG has
filed its final report dated 21.07.2025 in relation to
the nine allegations which formed part of the record
in SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010. The petitioners rely
upon the report to contend that it reflects repeated
departures from tender based procurement and
serious gaps in official documentation. The State, on
the other hand, relies upon the portions of the report
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 5 of 35
which record verification of payments with reference
to measurement books and joint physical verification
of certain works.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the pleadings, affidavits and the
material placed on record, the principal issue that
arises for consideration is whether the allegations and
the prima facie material relating to the award and
execution of public works contracts, including the
asserted pattern of repeated departures from open and
competitive tendering, gaps in official documentation,
and the stated award of works to Respondent Nos. 4 to
6 or firms and individuals related to them, warrant a
direction by this Court for an independent investigation
by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so,
the scope of such investigation and the consequential
directions required to secure the integrity of the
process.
Applicable standard for invoking Court-directed
investigation
6. The petitioners seek a direction for investigation by the
CBI or, in the alternative, the constitution of a SIT. It is
well settled that, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
32 of the Constitution, this Court possesses the
constitutional authority to direct that an investigation
be carried out by an agency other than the ordinary
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 6 of 35
State investigating machinery, including the CBI,
where the circumstances of the case so warrant. At the
same time, the jurisprudence of this Court has
consistently emphasised that such power is to be
exercised with restraint.
7. In State of W.B. v. Committee for Protection of
1
Democratic Rights , the Constitutional Bench of this
Court held that a direction by a constitutional court to
the CBI to investigate a cognizable offence within the
territory of a State is not barred merely for want of State
consent, and such a direction does not violate the
federal structure or the doctrine of separation of
powers. The Court also underscored that constitutional
courts, as protectors of civil liberties, have not only the
power but also the obligation to protect fundamental
rights, including under Article 21. However, the same
decision cautions that the very amplitude of the power
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India
requires great care in its exercise. It has been reiterated
that a direction to the CBI is not to be made as a matter
of routine or merely because allegations have been
levelled against the local police. The extraordinary
power is to be exercised sparingly and cautiously, and
in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to
lend credibility and instil confidence in the
investigation, or where the incident has wider
ramifications, or where such a course is necessary for
1
(2010) 3 SCC 571
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 7 of 35
doing complete justice and enforcing fundamental
rights. The relevant portion from the judgement is as
follows:
“69. In the final analysis, our answer to the
question referred is that a direction by the High
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution, to CBI to investigate a
cognizable offence alleged to have been
committed within the territory of a State without
the consent of that State will neither impinge
upon the federal structure of the Constitution
nor violate the doctrine of separation of power
and shall be valid in law. Being the protectors
of civil liberties of the citizens, this Court and the
High Courts have not only the power and
jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect the
fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in
general and under Article 21 of the Constitution
in particular, zealously and vigilantly.
70. Before parting with the case, we deem it
necessary to emphasise that despite wide
powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the
Constitution, while passing any order, the
Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed
limitations on the exercise of these constitutional
powers. The very plenitude of the power under
the said articles requires great caution in its
exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a
direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a
case is concerned, although no inflexible
guidelines can be laid down to decide whether
or not such power should be exercised but time
and again it has been reiterated that such an
order is not to be passed as a matter of routine
or merely because a party has levelled some
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 8 of 35
allegations against the local police. This
extraordinary power must be exercised
sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
situations where it becomes necessary to
provide credibility and instil confidence in
investigations or where the incident may have
national and international ramifications or
where such an order may be necessary for
doing complete justice and enforcing the
fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be
flooded with a large number of cases and with
limited resources, may find it difficult to properly
investigate even serious cases and in the
process lose its credibility and purpose with
unsatisfactory investigations.”
8. The governing principle is that transfer of investigation
to the CBI is justified only in rare and exceptional cases
where it is necessary to do justice between the parties
and to instil confidence in the public mind, or where
the investigation by the State police lacks credibility
and it is necessary to secure a fair, honest and complete
investigation. Illustratively, such transfer may be
warranted where high officials of the State are involved,
where the accusation is against top officials of the
investigating agency such that they may influence the
course of investigation, or where the investigation is
prima facie found to be tainted or biased.
9. These principles also make it clear that this Court,
while considering a request for CBI investigation or
constitution of an SIT, does not undertake an
adjudication on culpability. The Court examines
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 9 of 35
whether the material placed discloses a prima facie
case which necessitates entrustment of investigation to
an independent agency so that the rule of law is upheld
and the investigative process commands confidence,
particularly where the status or authority of persons
implicated may reasonably give rise to apprehensions
about the impartiality of the ordinary investigative
process. In determining whether the extraordinary
jurisdiction to entrust investigation to the CBI should
be exercised, the Court ordinarily examines whether
the material placed before it discloses (i) a prima facie
case raising serious questions of legality, (ii)
circumstances suggesting that investigation by the
ordinary State machinery may not inspire confidence
where high public functionaries are implicated, and (iii)
the necessity of an independent inquiry to preserve
public confidence in the rule of law
Constitutional discipline in public procurement
10. The award of public contracts is an exercise of public
power. It involves the expenditure of public funds and
the conferment of economic benefit by the State. Such
decisions are not insulated as matters of private
contract. They are subject to the discipline of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, because the State must act
fairly, transparently, and in a non-arbitrary manner
when it distributes public resources.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 10 of 35
11. This Court has repeatedly recognised that State owned
or public owned resources cannot be dealt with at the
absolute discretion of the executive. Public interest is
the paramount consideration. One of the ordinary and
safest methods of securing that public interest is by
inviting competition through tenders. A departure from
competitive tendering may be permissible in a limited
set of situations, but only when the departure is
justified by rational and recorded reasons that do not
suggest discrimination. In Sachidanand Pandey v.
2
State of W.B. , this Court emphasised that
appearance of public justice is as important as doing
justice, and nothing should be done which gives an
appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism. That principle
has particular force in matters of public contracting,
because secrecy, discretion and personal proximity are
precisely the conditions in which abuse of power
becomes difficult to detect.
12. The constitutional requirement is not satisfied merely
because a work exists on the ground or because an
authority asserts that funds were utilised. Public
procurement has two distinct dimensions. One is the
physical execution of work. The other is the integrity of
the process by which public money is committed and
paid out. A project may be visible at the site and yet the
procurement decision may still be unconstitutional if it
was arrived at through an arbitrary, opaque or
2
(1987) 2 SCC 295
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 11 of 35
conflicted process. It is the decision-making process
which must be capable of scrutiny through
contemporaneous records, including the tender trail
where tender is required, and the recorded justification
where tender is dispensed with.
13. The discipline that governs State largesse reinforces
this position. The State and its instrumentalities
cannot confer benefits according to the whims of any
political or administrative functionary. In Akhil
3
Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P. , this
Court held that every decision to confer benefit must be
founded on a sound, transparent and discernible policy
and must be implemented by a non-discriminatory
method, free from favouritism and nepotism. The same
understanding informs the statement in Centre for
4
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India , that
whenever a contract or licence is granted the public
authority must adopt a transparent and fair method so
that eligible persons have a fair opportunity of
competition. These decisions do not lay down tendering
as a mechanical ritual. They treat transparency and fair
opportunity as constitutional essentials in the
disposition of public resources.
14. These principles are especially stringent where the
allegation is of conflict of interest or related party
benefit. In such situations, the constitutional concern
3
(2011) 5 SCC 29
4
(2012) 3 SCC 1
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 12 of 35
is not limited to whether the State obtained value for
money. The concern is whether public power was used,
directly or indirectly, to confer private advantage, or
whether the process was structured in a manner that
excluded competition and enabled a preferred
beneficiary. Once such a concern arises on the record,
it is not answered by showing that the overall
percentage of work awarded to related parties is
numerically small. A constitutional violation in public
contracting is not diluted by statistics. Even a single
instance, if established, undermines equality, the rule
of law and public confidence in fair administration.
15. At the same time, it must be emphasized that judicial
review in this field does not convert the Court into a
tender approving authority. The Court does not sit to
choose the contractor or to re-evaluate technical bids.
The Court examines whether the process conforms to
constitutional standards of fairness, transparency and
non-arbitrariness, and whether the record supports the
decision. Where the complaint is not about comparative
merits of bidders but about systemic opacity, repeated
departures from competitive methods, missing records
and alleged conflict of interest, the matter travels
beyond an ordinary contractual grievance and raises
questions of constitutional accountability.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 13 of 35
Procurement deviations and missing records as red flags
16. A separate but closely connected aspect concerns the
legal significance of a departure from competitive
tendering and the non-availability of core procurement
records. Competitive tendering is not an inflexible
ritual, but it remains the ordinary method by which the
State demonstrates fairness and secures public
confidence in the disposition of public resources. When
the State dispenses with an open tender, the exception
must be strictly conditioned. The decision to depart
from competition must be supported by reasons
recorded by the competent authority, and those
reasons must be rational and capable of objective
scrutiny. In administrative law, the insistence on
reasons is a restraint on arbitrariness and a safeguard
of transparency, and it enables effective judicial review.
The requirement of reasons is not satisfied by broad
assertions made after the event. Even where the order
itself does not contain a detailed narration, the record
must disclose why the ordinary rule was departed from
and what safeguards were adopted to ensure that the
departure did not become a vehicle for favouritism. This
Court has recognised that, at the least, the record
should disclose reasons, even if those reasons are brief.
17. The non production of core records such as tender
documents, comparative statements, evaluation
material, approvals, measurement records and
vouchers raises a distinct and serious concern. The
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 14 of 35
State is the custodian of public records and it is
expected to maintain them in a manner that makes
public expenditure traceable and accountable. When
material records that ought to exist are not produced,
the Court is not required to treat that circumstance as
innocuous. The law also permits a court to draw a
presumption against a party that withholds evidence
within its power, and that principle applies with greater
force where the custodian is the State.
18. It must also be emphasised that a physical trace of a
project, by itself, does not answer the constitutional
question. The distinction between physical execution
and legality of the procurement process assumes
particular importance where the State seeks to rely on
the mere existence of completed works as a defence.
One is whether some work was executed. The other is
whether the process by which public money was
committed and paid out was fair, competitive where
competition was required, and free from conflict of
interest. Judicial review in contract matters focuses on
the decision making process and tests it for legality and
absence of arbitrariness, bias and mala fides.
19. For these reasons, where the material placed before the
Court indicates repeated resort to non-competitive
methods without a demonstrable record of reasons, or
indicates gaps in the record trail that prevent
meaningful scrutiny, the matter travels beyond a
routine contractual grievance. Such features become
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 15 of 35
relevant indicators for determining whether an
independent investigation is required, so that
responsibility for deviations and missing records may
be fixed and the integrity of public procurement is
secured in accordance with the rule of law.
Appreciation of the record in the present case
20. The pleadings in the writ petition proceed on the basis
that the petitioners have placed on record a list of
public works, across multiple departments and
schemes, which according to them reveals a sustained
pattern of award of contracts and work orders to a
narrow set of entities claimed to be closely connected
with Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The petitioners allege that
the works were repeatedly awarded without an open
and competitive tender process, that the requirement
of disclosing and addressing conflicts of interest was
bypassed, and that the procurement record does not
contain the contemporaneous decision trail that would
ordinarily demonstrate fairness and transparency.
21. In particular, the petitioners identify certain firms and
individuals as forming the core of the alleged pattern.
The petitioners allege that contracts were awarded to
firms stated to be owned or controlled by the close
family members of Respondent No. 4, who is the
present Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh, and to
entities stated to be owned by Respondent Nos. 5 and
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 16 of 35
6 and by close political associates. The petitioners
contend that the scale and frequency of such awards,
when viewed together, disclose a prima facie case of
nepotism, conflict of interest and abuse of public office.
22. The petitioners further allege that a significant number
of the works were executed through the work order
system without tender, including works of substantial
value. The petitioners assert that the work order
method was not employed as an exception justified by
genuine urgency or special circumstances, but was
used in a manner that displaced competition and
facilitated repeated awards to a preferred class of
contractors. The petitioners also contend that even
where a tender is stated to have been issued, the
contemporaneous material that would ordinarily
support the award, including comparative statements,
evaluation records and file notings, has not been
produced.
23. The record also includes the final report filed by the
CAG on 21.07.2025 in relation to the directions arising
from SLP (C) No. 34696 of 2010. The final audit report
deals with nine allegations and contains findings which
are material for appreciating the nature of the issues
raised before us. For example, in relation to the award
of carriage contract work for transportation of 24,800
MT of rice under Sampoorna Gramin Rozgar Yojana,
the audit records that the Department concerned did
not invite tender or quotation, though four firms
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 17 of 35
submitted offers, and the work order was issued to the
firm selected as the lowest bidder. The audit also
records that the proprietor of the concerned firm was
Shri Jambey Tashi as alleged in the special leave
petition, but that there was no information on record
regarding his family relationship with Shri Dorjee
Khandu. The audit further notes that the Department
verified claims on distances on the basis of notifications
issued by Deputy Commissioners and that, on cross-
verification, it did not find differences between the
contractor’s claims and the supporting records. At the
same time, the audit records that monthly progress
reports contemplated under the scheme guidelines
were not prepared and that details for certain districts
were not furnished, and it also notes that joint physical
verification was undertaken in respect of a sample of
works shown as executed.
24. More significantly, across several other allegations, the
audit report records repeated features that have a
direct bearing on procurement integrity and record
accountability. The audit records multiple instances of
execution of works without call of tender, and it
repeatedly notes that the basis for selection of
contractors and the reasons for dispensing with tender
were not on record. The audit report also records
several instances where vouchers were not produced,
or where crucial tender-related documentation was
stated to be unavailable. Illustratively, the audit
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 18 of 35
records that for the NLCPR project relating to
improvement and re-alignment of the porter track from
Jang to Sulungthi, vouchers for an amount of Rs.
107.11 lakhs were not produced, and for the NLCPR
project relating to construction of the porter track from
Nuranang to Mago, vouchers for an amount of Rs.
23.20 lakhs were not produced. In the NLCPR project
relating to construction of the road from Lhou Nallah to
Mukto CO Headquarters via Gomkeling and Serjong,
the audit records that vouchers for an amount of Rs.
12.24 crores were not produced and that documents
relating to comparative bid statements and award of
work where tender notice was issued were not made
available, resulting in the audit being unable to probe
the award further. These are not minor clerical
omissions. They directly affect the traceability of public
expenditure and the ability of the audit process to verify
whether procurement decisions were taken in
accordance with law. They go to the heart of whether
the expenditure is traceable and whether the
procurement decision is capable of objective scrutiny.
25. The audit report similarly records that in the project
relating to improvement and upgradation of road
network in Tawang township, a large part of the work
was executed through multiple contractors without call
of tender and vouchers for a part of the expenditure
were not produced. In the project relating to providing
water supply in Tawang township, the audit records
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 19 of 35
that while certain components were put to tender,
several other components were executed without call of
tender, and that vouchers for an amount of Rs. 273.92
lakhs were not made available. In the allegation relating
to the corpus fund of Rs. 23 crores sanctioned to the
Bodhi Language and Literature Promotional Society,
the audit records that the corpus fund remained as a
fixed deposit, but that the accrued interest amounting
to several crores of rupees was transferred to a savings
account and the audit could not directly confirm its
utilisation due to lack of documentation linking
expenditures to specific end uses. The audit further
records that as per information furnished by the
Registrar of Societies, the Society never renewed its
registration after the initial registration in 1993. In
relation to the PMGSY projects, the audit report records
that in certain projects works were executed without
inviting tender by engaging a large number of
contractors, and in certain other projects, although
tenders were stated to have been issued and awarded,
the relevant comparative statements or award
documentation was stated to be unavailable, thereby
disabling scrutiny of whether competition was fair and
how the award decision was taken.
26. The petitioners filed an additional affidavit after the
CAG report was on record, wherein they expressly
dispute and criticise parts of the audit conclusions. The
petitioners contend that the work order system, even
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 20 of 35
where used for so-called petty or emergent works, does
not dispense with statutory requirements such as fair
opportunity and recorded justification, and that the
absence of tenders and the absence of complete records
cannot be normalised as an administrative practice.
The petitioners also contend that the audit’s reliance
on joint physical verification cannot be treated as a
substitute for verifying adherence to procurement
norms and technical specifications, and that physical
existence of a work does not answer questions of
conflict of interest, distortion of competition, record
tampering, or unexplained expenditure. The petitioners
further allege that the State’s disclosure in its
additional affidavit is incomplete, that certain works
referred to by the petitioners were omitted, and that the
State did not furnish the contemporaneous
procurement record, including tender committee
material, comparative statements and file findings.
27. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, in its reply, has sought
to meet the petitioners’ case on a broad platform. The
State asserts that the CAG is a constitutional authority
and that the audit report is now within the domain of
constitutional and legislative scrutiny. The State
further asserts that award of works through the work
order system is not peculiar to the respondents alleged
by the petitioners, and that the work order system is
rooted in the geographical and socio-economic
conditions prevailing in Arunachal Pradesh. The State
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 21 of 35
explains the process by which administrative approval
and expenditure sanction is granted, followed by
technical sanction, and states that works valued below
Rs. 50.00 lakhs are executed on work order basis in
terms of the statutory framework, while works above
that value are ordinarily executed through tenders. The
State relies upon the Arunachal Pradesh District Based
Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives,
Development and Promotional) Act, 2015, including
Section 3A, which contemplates that works costing up
to Rs. 50.00 lakhs, for which no special technical know-
how is required and subject to the statutory conditions,
may be given through work order without tender. The
State denies that Section 3A has been violated and
asserts that the petitioners have not placed explicit
proof of such violation. The State also asserts that a
large proportion of the works referred to by the
petitioners were awarded through tender and that the
petition is being projected beyond the factual
foundation laid by the petitioners themselves.
28. The State has also placed on record a compilation
which it states has been prepared across seven major
works departments, covering the period 01.04.2014 to
31.12.2025, and including a summary of tenders and
work orders, and a summary of the percentage of works
awarded to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms related to
them. The State asserts that the share of such awards
is miniscule in terms of both tenders and work orders
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 22 of 35
and places reliance on departmental percentages which
include figures such as 0.32 per cent and 0.07 per cent
for the Department of Power, 0.03 per cent and 0.01
per cent for the Public Health Engineering and Water
Supply Department, 1.03 per cent and 0.08 per cent for
the Rural Works Department, 0.79 per cent and 0.06
per cent for the Water Resource Department, 0.80 per
cent and 0.26 per cent for the Public Works
Department, 1.20 per cent and 0.00 per cent for the
Department of Hydro-Power Development, and 0.37 per
cent and 0.36 per cent for the Department of Urban
Development.
29. Having considered the record at this stage, we find that
the petitioners’ allegations are not confined to a mere
grievance about the outcome of a tender. They raise
issues that go to the integrity of public procurement
and the traceability of public expenditure. The audit
report, the petitioners’ additional affidavit, and the
State’s replies together disclose repeated resort to non-
tender methods, repeated absence of recorded reasons
for such resort, and repeated non-production of
vouchers and tender-related records in relation to high
value public projects. The State’s reliance on aggregate
percentages does not, by itself, answer the concerns
arising from specific instances where the procurement
trail is incomplete or absent. These are matters that
require structured investigation into the decision-
making process, the custody and availability of records,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 23 of 35
the reasons for deviations, the identification of
beneficiaries and related-party links, and the
ascertainment of whether any cognizable offences or
other legal breaches are disclosed.
Problems with the State’s arguments
30. We are unable to accept the attempt of the State to
answer allegations of this nature by reference to broad
generalities. The first response of the State is that the
CAG is a constitutional authority and that its report
now lies within the domain of the Governor and the
State Legislature. That submission proceeds on a
misconception. Legislative scrutiny through the Public
Accounts Committee is an important mechanism of
financial accountability, but it does not displace the
constitutional role of this Court when allegations before
it implicate arbitrariness in public procurement,
possible conflict of interest, and prima facie misuse of
public office. The proceedings before this Court are not
rendered infructuous merely because an audit report is
also capable of being examined in the legislative
domain. The CAG report has been called for and placed
on record in these proceedings pursuant to orders of
this Court, and it forms part of the material that must
be assessed for the limited purpose of determining
whether an independent investigation is warranted.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 24 of 35
31. The second response of the State is to normalise the
work order system by attributing it to the geographical
and socio-economic conditions of Arunachal Pradesh
and to rely upon the Arunachal Pradesh District Based
Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives,
Development and Promotional) Act, 2015. We do not
doubt that the State may, consistent with law, design
procurement modalities that respond to local
conditions. We also accept that certain works may be
executed through work orders within the statutory
framework. However, what is under scrutiny in these
proceedings is not the existence of a work order system
as a concept. The concern is the manner of its
deployment in relation to public works and the
procurement trail that accompanies it. A statutory
framework permitting limited dispensation with tender
does not authorise unstructured discretion. It does not
dilute the requirements of Article 14. It does not permit
repeated departures from competition without recorded
reasons. It does not permit the State to proceed without
a decision trail that makes the award capable of
objective scrutiny, particularly where allegations of
related-party benefit are made.
32. The third response of the State is that the petitioners
have failed to produce “explicit proof” of violation of
Section 3A of the Act of 2015. That submission reverses
the constitutional burden. The petitioners are not
public record custodians. The State is. The State
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 25 of 35
awards contracts, maintains the files, sanctions
expenditure, records the reasons for deviations, and
holds the tender and work order record. When serious
allegations of unfairness and conflict of interest arise
and the record itself shows gaps in essential
documents, the Court cannot place the entire onus on
the petitioners to establish the illegality by materials
they do not control. At the prima facie stage, what is
material is whether the record discloses circumstances
that warrant an independent investigation. Missing
vouchers, missing comparative statements, and
absence of recorded reasons are not neutral facts. They
are indicia that the State must answer and that require
independent verification.
33. The fourth response of the State is to rely on aggregate
percentages and to assert that the share of works
awarded to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms related to
them is “minuscule”. We are not persuaded that such
arithmetic can answer the constitutional concern. The
Constitution does not tolerate a breach of public trust
merely because the breach is numerically small when
measured against the total universe of State
expenditure. Even a single instance of award of public
work through a process tainted by conflict of interest,
or by a deliberate bypass of competition, constitutes an
affront to Article 14. A low percentage cannot become a
licence. It cannot be a defence to nepotism. It cannot
neutralise the illegality that attaches to an award which
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 26 of 35
is not supported by a transparent process and
contemporaneous records.
34. Moreover, the percentage argument is inherently
capable of masking what the Court is required to
examine. A Statewide denominator can conceal
concentration within a district, concentration within a
particular department, concentration in high-value
projects, or concentration within a small set of
contractors. Even assuming that the share is small in
aggregate, the constitutional question remains whether
public power has been used to confer private benefit,
whether open competition has been displaced without
justification, and whether the decision trail is intact.
The State’s compilation, which is presented as a
statistical answer, does not address the absence of
tender records and vouchers noted in the audit
material. It also does not answer why, where tender is
claimed, comparative statements and related records
are unavailable.
35. We also find it difficult to accept the State’s posture that
its compliance is complete because it has furnished
details only with reference to the works listed by the
petitioners. The orders of this Court required a detailed
disclosure and a transparent response on the contracts
in issue, including those relating to Respondent Nos. 4
to 6 or firms related to them, and the subsequent order
clarified that the scope was not confined to a single
district. The State cannot choose a narrow construction
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 27 of 35
of disclosure obligations when the controversy
concerns the integrity of public procurement. In any
event, where the State asserts that the petition is
“Tawang-centric”, it is still obliged to answer, with
complete procurement records, how the questioned
awards were made, why tender was dispensed with,
and why essential documents are missing.
36. Ultimately, what emerges from the record is that the
State does not deny that the work order system has
been used extensively. The audit material reflects
multiple instances of non-tender execution and missing
documentation. The petitioners allege related-party
benefit and conflict of interest. In response, the State
offers broad justifications, invokes percentages, and
disclaims comment on the audit report. These answers
do not meet the gravity of the allegations. They do not
restore the confidence that a matter of this nature
requires. They reinforce the need for an investigation by
an independent agency that can trace the decision-
making process, locate responsibility for missing
records, and examine whether the pattern disclosed is
an outcome of lawful administration or an abuse of
public office.
Necessity of an independent investigation by the CBI
37. Having regard to the principles set out above and the
material placed on record, we are satisfied that this is
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 28 of 35
a fit case where an independent investigation is
necessary. The record discloses repeated resort to non-
tender methods in relation to public works, repeated
absence of recorded reasons explaining why
competition was dispensed with, and repeated non-
production of vouchers and tender-related
documentation in relation to projects of substantial
value. Such circumstances raise legitimate concerns
not merely of administrative irregularity but of possible
abuse of public office, manipulation of procurement
processes, and concealment or destruction of official
records, matters which require investigation by an
independent agency vested with statutory powers of
criminal investigation. The petitioners further allege
that a significant cluster of such awards has accrued
to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or to firms and individuals
related to them, thereby raising a serious question of
conflict of interest and abuse of public office. These are
not matters that can be left to be answered by broad
affidavits or by statistical summaries. They require a
structured investigation into the decision-making
process, the manner of selection of contractors, the
justification for deviations from tender-based
procurement, and the integrity and custody of public
records.
38. The final report filed by the CAG has evidentiary
relevance in this context, though it is not determinative
of criminal culpability. The audit identifies repeated
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 29 of 35
gaps in the documentary trail, including non-
availability of vouchers and non-availability of tender
evaluation material, and in several instances it records
that it could not probe the award process further for
want of essential records. These features, when read
with the petitioners’ assertions of related-party benefit
and with the State’s inability to furnish a complete
contemporaneous procurement trail, provide a
sufficient prima facie foundation for entrustment of
investigation to an independent agency.
39. We are also mindful that the allegations in the present
proceedings concern public contracting under the
authority of the State and are directed, in material part,
against persons who occupy, or are stated to be closely
connected with those who occupy, high constitutional
and political office in the State. In such circumstances,
leaving the matter to be investigated by agencies that
function under the administrative control of the State
would raise a serious and reasonable apprehension, in
the public mind, about institutional independence. The
credibility of the process is as important as its eventual
outcome. Where a case concerns the integrity of public
procurement and involves allegations of conflict of
interest at the highest levels, an investigation must be
not only fair but must also appear fair.
40. A CAG audit is not designed to perform the role of a
criminal investigation. An audit may verify accounts,
test compliance, and record deficiencies. It cannot,
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 30 of 35
however, conduct searches and seizures, trace
beneficial ownership and related-party links through
layered entities, examine the money trail, identify the
persons responsible for custody and disappearance of
files, or determine whether the facts disclose the
commission of cognizable offences. These are functions
that lie within the domain of an investigating agency
empowered by law.
41. We have considered whether constitution of an SIT
under the supervision of the State would suffice. In the
facts of the present case, we are of the view that the
nature of allegations, the institutional proximity of the
persons against whom allegations are made, and the
recurring deficiencies in the procurement record make
it necessary to entrust the investigation to an agency
which is institutionally independent of the State
executive. The CBI is the appropriate agency for this
purpose.
42. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate that CBI shall
register a preliminary enquiry forthwith and shall
conduct a time-bound investigation into the award and
execution of the public works contracts and work
orders which form the subject matter of this writ
petition and the affidavits filed in these proceedings.
The investigation shall include examination of the
procurement process, the reasons and approvals for
dispensing with tender, the availability and custody of
records including vouchers, comparative statements
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 31 of 35
and file notings, the identity of beneficial owners of the
contractor entities, the fund flow and payments made,
and any other connected matter necessary to ascertain
whether any illegality or cognizable offence is disclosed.
43. Before issuing directions for investigation, it is also
necessary to clarify the temporal scope of the inquiry.
During the course of these proceedings, affidavits and
compilations of records were directed to be furnished
with reference to the period 2015 to 2025, and the State
itself has placed materials covering substantially the
same timeframe. The allegations in the writ petition,
the audit scrutiny, and the record placed before this
Court together indicate that the questioned pattern of
procurement practices is alleged to have occurred
across multiple departments during this period. In
order to ensure that the investigation is both effective
and structured, while at the same time avoiding an
unbounded or roving inquiry into earlier periods for
which no material has been placed before this Court, it
is appropriate that the investigation be confined to the
period 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2025.
Conclusion
44. For the reasons recorded above, and in exercise of the
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, the writ petition is disposed of
with the following directions:
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 32 of 35
I. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) shall
register a preliminary enquiry within two weeks from
the date of this judgment and shall proceed in
accordance with law.
II. The preliminary enquiry and the consequential
investigation, if any, shall cover the award and
execution of public works contracts and work orders
in the State of Arunachal Pradesh for the period from
01.01.2015 to 31.12.2025, including the works and
compilations placed on record in these proceedings.
The CBI shall, in particular, examine awards made
to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and to firms or individuals
related to them, and shall examine the procurement
process, the reasons and approvals for dispensing
with open tender, the compliance with the applicable
statutory and statutory requirements, the
availability and custody of records, the flow of funds
and payments, and such other connected aspects as
are necessary to ascertain whether any illegality or
cognizable offence is disclosed.
III. The CBI shall not be precluded from examining
transactions outside the above period to the limited
extent necessary for tracing beneficial ownership,
related-party links, fund flows, or other connected
circumstances that bear upon the transactions
within the above period.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 33 of 35
IV. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and all its concerned
departments, authorities and instrumentalities shall
cooperate fully with the CBI. They shall, within four
weeks from the date of this judgment, make available
all relevant records, including sanction orders,
administrative approvals, technical sanctions,
tenders, comparative statements, tender committee
records, work orders, agreements, measurement
books, bills, vouchers, utilisation certificates,
completion certificates, and all electronic data
relating to e-procurement and payments.
V. The Chief Secretary, State of Arunachal Pradesh
shall, within one week from the date of this
judgment, designate a nodal officer for coordination
with the CBI, and each of the concerned
departments shall also designate a nodal officer
within the same period. The nodal officers shall
ensure timely production of records and shall
facilitate access to offices, servers and record rooms
as may be required.
VI. The State of Arunachal Pradesh shall ensure that no
record, physical or electronic, relevant to the subject
matter of the enquiry and investigation is destroyed,
altered, or rendered inaccessible. The Chief
Secretary shall issue necessary directions to all
concerned departments within one week from the
date of this judgment to secure preservation of
records and electronic logs.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 34 of 35
VII. The CBI shall file a status report before this Court
within sixteen weeks from the date of this judgment.
45. We clarify that the observations made in this judgment
are for the purposes of deciding whether an
independent investigation is warranted. They shall not
be construed as findings on the merits of any
allegation, and they shall not prejudice any person in
any proceedings that may arise.
46. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………..J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………………………………..J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
………………………………..J.
[N.V. ANJARIA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 06, 2026
Writ Petition (Civil) No.54 of 2024 Page 35 of 35