The Rajasthan High Court has intervened in a major corruption case, demanding clear answers from the state government regarding alleged large-scale irregularities in the implementation of the Jal Jeevan Mission. The court's action came on Wednesday after a petitioner argued that enforcement actions have been suspiciously narrow despite evidence pointing to far more widespread wrongdoing.
Court Directs Government and ED to Respond
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma heard the petition. The bench issued a significant directive, ordering both the state government and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to formally respond to all complaints of corruption presented in the case. The court has scheduled the next hearing in three weeks, listing the matter for further scrutiny after the responses are filed.
Petitioner Alleges Protection of 'Influential Criminals'
Advocates Poonam Chand Bhandari, Abhinav Bhandari, and Dr. TN Sharma, representing the petitioner organisation Public Against Corruption, presented a damning account before the judges. They alleged that while scams worth thousands of crores of rupees have occurred under the flagship water scheme, the government's investigative action has been minimal and selective.
The lawyers stated that the complainant had filed detailed complaints in multiple cases, which were also placed before the court. However, they argued, the government "neither conducted any investigation nor registered FIRs in these cases, except for frauds committed by 2 firms." They boldly accused the authorities of shielding "influential criminals" and asserted that action was taken in only two cases, letting the "big fish" escape.
Contention from the Enforcement Directorate
During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Bharat Vyas, appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, informed the court that the federal agency had "also arrested some people" in connection with the case. However, the petitioner's counsels countered this, maintaining that the arrests were limited and did not address the broader spectrum of complaints they had submitted with supporting documents to the government.
The petitioner's side emphasised that despite providing documented evidence, no consequential action followed in the majority of the alleged fraud cases, reinforcing their allegation of a protected cover-up.
