Delhi court disposes of PWD irregularities case against Satyendar Jain

Hindustan Times

8 hours ago

A Delhi court on Monday disposed of a corruption case against former Public Works Department (PWD) minister Satyendar Jain, of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), alleging irregularities in hiring a creative team for PWD's infrastructure projects in 2016 and causing a loss to the public exchequer. Satyendar Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged
₹ 7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi.
Special judge Dig Vinay Singh, accepting the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI's) closure report filed in 2022, said, 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the government exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established.'
The court noted that despite several years of investigation carried out by the probe agency, no incriminating evidence has been found. 'Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rule warrants invoking the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,' the court said.
CBI had filed the case against Jain in May 2018, based on a reference from Delhi lieutenant governor, to investigate allegations of irregularities in awarding a tender to a private firm for PWD's infrastructure projects. Senior officials of PWD, including its engineer-in-chief, were also named as accused.
According to the FIR, Jain and other PWD officials were accused of irregularities in hiring a 'creative team' of consultants, in breach of recruitment and financial regulations. They were also accused of outsourcing professionals for PWD projects without the finance department's approval.
To be sure, Jain is facing two other cases, one pertaining a disproportionate assets case, in which he is accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, up to approximately ₹1.62 crore between 2015 and 2017. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case in 2022 and granted bail in 2024.
Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi.
Both cases are at the Rouse Avenue Court and charges have not been framed in either.
Following the verdict, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal posted on X in Hindi: 'All the cases filed against 'you' leaders are false. With time, the truth will come out in all cases. We were sent to jail by filing false cases against us. Shouldn't all those who filed these false cases and the leaders at whose behest these false cases were filed be sent to jail?Whenever they wanted... they sent us to jail, and whenever they felt like it, they filed a 'closure report'? Is this justice?'
The BJP did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.
In its closure report in the PWD case, the CBI said that it found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. On the hiring process, the CBI concluded that there was no irregularity in the selection process and the same was based on merit and qualification.
Meanwhile, on the financial aspect, the agency found no irregularity of illicit gain to any of the accused, stating that the expenditure for the project was well within the threshold delegated to the PWD, and there was no mandatory requirement to consult the finance department.
'The hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs. A transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular,' the CBI said.
A protest petition was moved by the Directorate of Vigilance of the Delhi government in 2022, challenging the report's findings, alleging that the CBI carried out a 'biased' probe, ignoring documentary evidence and relying solely on witness statements.
Rejecting the protest plea, the court on Monday stated that the law clearly stated that suspicion cannot replace proof and even to charge someone, a strong suspicion was needed to proceed. 'The precedents relied upon by the complainant are distinguishable on the facts and do not help in the facts of the present case,' the court said.