Pune: The Bombay High Court has allowed a criminal writ petition seeking an investigation into serious allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets against former Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) City Engineer Prashant Madhukar Waghmare.
The petition was filed by Pune-based activist Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire through Advocate Rohan Mahadik and was argued by Senior Advocate Rajiv Chavan before a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice R.R. Bhonsale. Senior Advocate Sanjiv Kadam, along with Advocate Abhijit Kulkarni, appeared on behalf of the PMC Commissioner.
The High Court quashed the April 2019 order of the PMC Commissioner that had denied sanction for an open inquiry against Waghmare. The court directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau to either initiate an open inquiry or register an FIR against the officer and the other accused named in the complaint. The bench also stayed the operation of the commissioner’s earlier rejection order.
The case revolves around a complaint filed in May 2016 before the Anti-Corruption Bureau, alleging that Waghmare had amassed assets worth nearly ₹2,000 crore, far exceeding his known sources of income. The complaint also named his family members and associated companies, accusing them of aiding in routing allegedly illicit funds through construction and development projects in Pune.
According to records, an enquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Bureau revealed that Waghmare failed to provide crucial financial details, including information about properties, company accounts, foreign travel expenses, and investments. Investigators noted his lack of cooperation despite multiple opportunities, prompting the enquiry officer to recommend an open investigation.
Challenging this decision, the petitioner argued that the competent authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by effectively conducting its own assessment, rather than merely determining whether sufficient grounds existed for an investigation. It was also contended that Waghmare’s non-cooperation itself warranted a deeper probe.
During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel emphasised that cases involving disproportionate assets do not require prior approval under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as such offences are not linked to official decision-making duties.
The court examined the scope of Section 17(A), relying on multiple judicial precedents, including rulings of the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts. It reiterated that prior approval is required only when the alleged offence is directly connected to decisions taken in an official capacity. In contrast, offences like corruption, fraud, and accumulation of disproportionate assets fall outside its protective ambit.
The bench observed that granting blanket protection at a preliminary stage could hinder anti-corruption investigations and defeat the purpose of the law. It stressed that the role of the competent authority is limited to assessing whether there is sufficient material to permit an enquiry, not to determine guilt or innocence.
Citing earlier judgments, the court underscored that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted in a manner that strengthens the fight against corruption, which poses a serious threat to democratic governance and the rule of law.
With this ruling, the High Court has effectively set aside the earlier orders and opened the door for a fresh and more detailed investigation into the allegations against Waghmare and his associates.
The Bombay High Court, while emphasizing the seriousness of corruption, relied on the observations of the Supreme Court of India in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, noting that corruption is “an enemy of the nation” and that every corrupt public servant, irrespective of rank or position, must be investigated and punished under the mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasised that the status or position of a public servant does not exempt them from equal treatment under the law. Decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into different classes, as they are common wrongdoers and must be dealt with through the same process of inquiry and investigation. The Court further observed that corruption by public servants erodes the moral fabric of society and poses a serious threat not only to governance but also to the national economy, national interest, and the country’s image.
