The Supreme Court has issued notices to the Arunachal Pradesh Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary, Home, after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) reported non-cooperation from the state government in a preliminary inquiry into alleged irregularities in public works contracts, including those linked to family members of Chief Minister Pema Khandu.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed the officials to appear personally before the apex court on August 24, along with their response to the CBI’s status report, and explain the alleged non-cooperation and non-compliance with the court’s earlier directions. The court observed that the CBI’s status report indicates a lack of cooperation from the state government in providing necessary records as directed earlier.
The CBI was directed to register a preliminary inquiry into allegations relating to the award and execution of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh, including those linked to relatives of the Chief Minister, in April. The probe agency was asked to examine the award and execution of public works contracts and work orders between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2025.
The state government was directed to fully cooperate with the inquiry, with the Chief Secretary asked to designate a nodal officer to coordinate with the CBI and ensure that all relevant records were furnished to the investigating agency. The PIL has alleged that public contracts worth around Rs 1,270 crore were awarded to firms linked to relatives of Chief Minister Pema Khandu, including his spouse and other family members, in violation of prescribed procedures.
The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 24. The proceedings arose out of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by NGOs Save Mon Region Federation and Voluntary Arunachal Sena, alleging large-scale irregularities in the award of public contracts in the northeastern state.
The apex court had clarified that its observations were confined to determining whether an independent probe was warranted and should not be construed as findings on the merits of the allegations. The court also ordered preservation of all physical and electronic records connected with the matter.
