DMK demands FIR over alleged entry of private individuals into TN Cabinet meetings
In a complaint submitted to the DGP, DMK's Organisation Secretary R.S. Bharathi alleged that two private individuals, John Arockiasamy and Vishnu Reddy, had attended Cabinet meetings, official review meetings and other high-level discussions chaired by the Chief Minister despite holding no official position in the government.
Describing the allegations as a serious breach of constitutional and legal safeguards, Bharathi sought the registration of an FIR and a comprehensive investigation into the alleged offences under the Official Secrets Act, 1923, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and other applicable laws.
"The information disclosed herein prima facie reveals the unlawful communication, receipt and access to confidential government information by unauthorised private individuals, together with possible abuse of public office, criminal conspiracy and other offences requiring immediate criminal investigation," the complaint said.
Bharathi contended that the Chief Minister, by virtue of the oath of office and secrecy prescribed under Article 164(3) of the Constitution and the Third Schedule, is under a continuing legal obligation to preserve the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings and other sensitive government business.
He argued that if the allegations are found to be true, they would amount to a violation of constitutional obligations, statutory duties and criminal law, warranting immediate police intervention.
According to the complaint, Arockiasamy and Reddy, whom the DMK described as close associates of the Chief Minister and residents of Andhra Pradesh, had allegedly been present during Cabinet meetings, official review sessions and other confidential deliberations held at the state Secretariat.
The DMK urged the police to conduct a thorough investigation to determine how the two individuals gained access to highly restricted government meetings, whether any confidential information was shared with them, and whether public servants had facilitated their participation in violation of established rules and procedures.
The party also sought action against all those found responsible for any breach of confidentiality or misuse of official authority, asserting that the allegations raised issues of significant constitutional importance and public interest.
