In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed the criminal proceedings against former Gujarat minister Dileep Sanghani, linked to an alleged Rs 400-crore fisheries scam dating back to 2008.
Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran of the Supreme Court cited a lack of substantive evidence as the reason for the dismissal, highlighting that the investigation failed to reveal any concrete evidence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. “There is not even an iota of material available from the investigation report… to attract the ingredients of the provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act,” the bench noted in its verdict.
The decision came in response to an appeal by Sanghani challenging a Gujarat High Court order from July 26, 2024, which had previously upheld a 2021 ruling from a special Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court. This earlier ruling had rejected the discharge applications filed by the accused in the case.
The case originated from allegations that, during their tenure, Sanghani, then the state cabinet minister for agriculture, and Parshottam Solanki, the minister of state for fisheries, were involved in the corrupt issuance of fishing contracts in state reservoirs. These contracts were reportedly granted without adhering to the mandated government tender processes, aimed at soliciting illegal gratifications.
The allegations were first brought to light by Ishaq Maradia, a Palanpur-based businessman, who accused Solanki of flouting rules by allotting fishing contracts bypassing the tendering system. Despite initial hesitations, the Gujarat government’s refusal to sanction prosecution led to intervention by then-Governor Dr. Kamla Beniwal, who authorized the prosecution of Solanki in 2012.
Following Maradia’s complaints, the ACB was directed in 2013 to investigate the allegations thoroughly. Their report submitted in 2015 pointed out irregularities in the awarding of the fishing contracts, but according to the Supreme Court’s recent findings, these did not suffice to meet the legal standards required for criminal prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Sanghani, argued successfully that there was no evidence of demand or acceptance of a bribe by his client, a point which the Supreme Court acknowledged in granting the discharge.
