Former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi was arrested in Chennai today, hours after the Madras High Court denied him anticipatory bail in an alleged corruption case involving the collection of money from private schools for government approvals and recognition during the previous MK Stalin-led DMK regime.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, including the P Chidambaram and Anil Sharma cases, the court held that serious economic offences required greater caution while considering anticipatory bail. The judge emphasised that individual liberty had to be balanced against society’s need for corruption-free government administration. What Are The Allegations Against The Minister Arasa Kumar, a DMK functionary who headed the private schools association, was subsequently arrested along with others over allegations of collecting money from school managements by promising government approvals, permanent recognition, licences and other clearances.
READ | DMK Ex-Minister Arrested In Rs 100-Crore Bribery Case.
MK Stalin Hits Out The judge also observed that granting protection from arrest before the co-accused was arrested could help him continue evading investigation.
One of the most significant grounds cited by the court was the alleged shielding of his co-accused Muthukumar who is on the run. Referring to statements from his relatives, the judge observed that initial records indicated that the former minister had kept the accused under his care and custody. The judge also flagged Anbil Mahesh’s political influence and the possibility of his influencing witnesses, interfering with the investigation or tampering with evidence. However, it held that cooperation alone was insufficient to justify anticipatory bail in a serious corruption case. Anbil Mahesh was not named in the original FIR. Investigators subsequently claimed to have uncovered evidence linking him to the accused, including allegations that he had directly received money described as party funds and promised government orders favourable to school managements. What The Defence Argued Senior counsel P Wilson, appearing for Anbil Mahesh, argued that his client had consistently cooperated with investigators, submitted documents and was not a flight risk. He maintained that custodial interrogation was unnecessary in a case largely based on documentary evidence. The defence also questioned why the investigation remained with Chennai’s Central Crime Branch instead of being transferred to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. The court rejected this objection, holding that the DVAC did not have exclusive jurisdiction over corruption investigations. This marks the first high-profile political arrest since the TVK came into power in Tamil Nadu and actor-turned-politician Vijay became Chief Minister.
The court acknowledged that the former minister had cooperated with investigators, appeared for questioning and answered 240 questions. The court noted that 177 victims had recorded statements and that the prosecution claimed the investigation had revealed collections amounting to approximately Rs 400 crore. The case originated from a complaint by the general secretary of a private schools association alleging large-scale corruption during the previous DMK government between 2021 and 2026. The alleged scam was initially estimated at around Rs 100 crore. However, the prosecution told the High Court that the investigation had revealed that the proceeds of crime amounted to approximately Rs 400 crore.
Rejecting his plea, Justice V Lakshminarayanan observed that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would “paralyse the investigation”, particularly when investigators were attempting to unravel an alleged multilayered corruption network and trace the money trail. READ | After DMK Ex-Minister’s Arrest, TVK’s “Bengal Monitor Lizard” Jab At MK Stalin The court held that this amounted to hampering the investigation and shielding a co-accused. Rejecting the defence argument that the evidence was largely documentary and custodial interrogation was unnecessary, the judge said investigators still needed to establish who controlled the alleged transactions and identify the ultimate destination of money collected in the name of “party fund”. The ruling TVK, however, said the law was taking its course.
