The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Centre to file within three weeks its response to a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu awarded government contracts to his family members.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued the order while hearing the PIL filed by NGOs Save Mon Region Federation and Voluntary Arunachal Senaa, which accused the chief minister of running the state “like his private limited company.”
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, argued that almost all government contracts in Arunachal Pradesh had been cornered by the CM’s close relatives. He alleged that the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) had also flagged irregularities, but the Union government had failed to file its affidavit despite a specific order from the apex court on March 18.
The petition named Pema Khandu, his father Dorjee Khandu’s second wife Rinchin Drema, and his nephew Tsering Tashi as parties to the case. It alleged Drema’s firm, Brand Eagles, had been awarded a large number of government contracts in violation of conflict-of-interest norms.
Counsel for the state of Arunachal Pradesh strongly opposed the allegations, calling the PIL a “sponsored litigation” and claiming that the petitioners were raking up “skeletons from 2010 and 2011.” The state had already filed its affidavit in compliance with the court’s earlier direction, the counsel added.
The Centre’s counsel admitted that an affidavit was required but argued that the Ministry of Finance was not a party to the matter and would have to be impleaded. Dismissing this technicality, the bench said, “There is a specific direction by this court that the Union of India, i.e., the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Finance shall also file a detailed affidavit. That is more than enough for you to have filed.”
Noting that the CAG had already filed its report and the state had submitted its affidavit, the bench gave the Union government three weeks—“and no more time”—to comply with its March 18 order. The petitioner was also allowed to file a reply to the state’s affidavit.
The case, which raises serious questions about transparency and conflict of interest in government contracts, will now be heard after three weeks.
