R Vaithilingam 
Tamil Nadu

DVAC reopens Rs 27.9 crore bribery probe against former TN minister R Vaithilingam

The case was originally registered by the DVAC in September 2024 based on a complaint filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam.

Written by : TNM Staff

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) has reopened its investigation into a bribery case against former Tamil Nadu Housing Minister R Vaithilingam. The move comes months after the agency closed the probe under the DMK government. What sparked controversy was that the decision to close the case was taken during a time when he switched from the AIADMK to the DMK.

On Friday, June 12, the DVAC informed the Principal Sessions Court in Chennai that it intended to conduct a fresh investigation into allegations that a company related to Vaithilingam’s sons received Rs 27.9 crore from a private construction firm allegedly in return for official favours during his tenure as Housing and Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) Minister in the AIADMK government between 2011 and 2016. The investigating officer filed a petition seeking reinvestigation of the case.

The case was originally registered by the DVAC in September 2024 based on a complaint filed by anti-corruption organisation Arappor Iyakkam. The complaint alleged that real estate company Shriram Properties and Infrastructure Private Ltd, now known as Gateway Office Parks, had routed Rs 27.9 crore to Muthammal Estates Private Ltd, a company run by Vaithilingam's sons Prabu and Shanmugaprabu, in February 2016. The payment was allegedly made in exchange for planning permission granted for a large residential and information technology project spread across nearly 58 acres in Perungalathur near Chennai.

According to the complaint, the funds were allegedly routed through Bharat Coal Chemicals Ltd (BCCL), which activists claimed was linked to the Shriram group. Investigators also examined an additional payment of Rs 2.1 crore made to Vaithilingam's brother-in-law, Pannerselvam.

The probe took a controversial turn earlier this year when the DVAC closed the case in February 2026. The Free Press Journal reported that the closure came about a month after Vaithilingam resigned from the AIADMK and joined the DMK in the presence of then Chief Minister MK Stalin and senior party leaders on January 21. He subsequently contested and won the 2026 Assembly election from Orathanadu on a DMK ticket.

The timing of the closure triggered criticism from opposition parties and activists, who questioned whether it was linked to Vaithilingam's political defection. During recent court proceedings, the DVAC confirmed that the case had been closed, bringing renewed public attention to the matter.

In its closure report, the agency stated that it had not found conclusive or corroborative evidence to establish allegations of illegal gratification or personal gain by Vaithilingam or any public servant involved in the planning permission process. While the report acknowledged that Muthammal Estates had received Rs 27.9 crore from BCCL, it accepted the explanation that the payment was linked to the proposed acquisition of nearly 25 acres of land in Tiruvallur district for a long-pending ammonia project. The agency cited an unregistered agreement between BCCL and Muthammal Estates in support of this claim.

The closure report further stated that investigators were unable to establish any direct financial or operational link between the Shriram group companies and BCCL. It also said no evidence was found of fund transfers between the entities or any commercial relationship that would support the bribery allegations.

Arappor Iyakkam coordinator Jayaram Venkatesan had criticised the closure, alleging that the case was used as political leverage before being dropped after Vaithilingam joined the ruling party. He also questioned the DVAC's conclusion that BCCL had no demonstrable link to the Shriram group.

Following the controversy, Anti-Corruption Bureau Director Arun ordered a fresh probe into the matter. The reopened investigation will examine both the original bribery allegations and the circumstances that led to the earlier closure of the case.