SC summons top Arunachal govt officials in probe against Khandu

The Supreme Court on Monday summoned the chief secretary and principal secretary (home) of the Arunachal Pradesh government, expressing strong displeasure over what it described as the state’s non-cooperation with a court-monitored CBI probe into allegations that chief minister Pema Khandu favoured firms linked to his family in the award of government contracts

The Supreme Court on Monday summoned the chief secretary and principal secretary (home) of the Arunachal Pradesh government, expressing strong displeasure over what it described as the state’s non-cooperation with a court-monitored CBI probe into allegations that chief minister Pema Khandu favoured firms linked to his family in the award of government contracts.

HT Image

A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed both officers to remain personally present on August 24 and explain why the state had failed to cooperate with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) despite specific directions issued by the court in April.

“We have perused CBI’s status report dated July 17. It reflects that there is non-cooperation at the end of the state government, as directed by this court on April 6. As such we deem it appropriate to issue notice to the chief secretary and principal secretary (home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh,” the bench said in its order.

The court directed the two officers to appear with their responses to CBI’s status report “and explain why there is non-cooperation and non-compliance with the order of this court”.

The observations came after the bench questioned the lack of progress in the investigation.

“Why is there non-cooperation? And what stops you from registering a case?” the bench asked CBI, referring to the preliminary enquiry directed earlier. “The petitioner had provided initial materials. There was no tender or any kind of process followed. Is a long rope being provided to the people involved?” it asked.

Additional solicitor general KM Nataraj, appearing for CBI, informed the court that the agency had been attempting to carry forward the enquiry but was yet to receive crucial records from the state administration.

“We have been trying. We have sent notices to them but some relevant information are yet to be provided to us,” submitted Nataraj.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, assisted by advocate Neha Rathi, contended that the material already collected warranted a regular criminal case. “They should have registered a regular case by now,” he argued.

The proceedings follow the Supreme Court’s April 6 judgment directing CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into allegations that firms linked to Khandu, his wife, brother and other relatives received government contracts through non-transparent procedures between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2025.

Holding that the allegations raised serious concerns about the integrity of public procurement, the court had at the time observed that “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.”

The court had directed CBI to examine contracts awarded to firms linked to Khandu’s family, including whether open tenders were improperly dispensed with, whether statutory procurement procedures were followed, whether records were missing or withheld, and whether the transactions disclosed any cognisable offence.

It had also directed the Arunachal Pradesh chief secretary to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate with CBI and ensure that all records sought by the agency were made available. The state was further restrained from allowing any relevant physical or electronic records to be destroyed, altered or rendered inaccessible.

The directions came on a public interest litigation filed by the Save Mon Region Federation, which alleged that a substantial number of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh, particularly in Tawang district, were awarded to firms owned by or linked to Khandu’s family members, resulting in enrichment worth thousands of crores of rupees.

While the state had argued that the contracts awarded to the firms constituted only a small fraction of total government works and that irregularities pointed out by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) were already being addressed, the Supreme Court had rejected the defence, observing that “a low percentage cannot become a licence” for nepotism and that missing procurement records and the repeated use of non-tender methods warranted an independent investigation.

HT reached out to the chief minister’s office but could not get a response till going to the print.