Supreme Court Summons Arunachal Pradesh Officials for Non-Cooperation in CBI Probe Against CM Pema Khandu

Kaustav Chowdhury
Aug 4
5 min read

The Supreme Court of India on August 3, 2026, directed the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home) of Arunachal Pradesh to personally appear before the Court on August 24, after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleged that state officials were not cooperating with its probe into contracts awarded to firms linked to Chief Minister Pema Khandu's family. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took a serious view of the CBI's status report, which documented the difficulties faced by the agency in obtaining records and documents from state authorities.

Background: The PIL and CBI Probe

The case originates from a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Save Mon Region Federation and the Voluntary Arunachal Sena. The petitioners alleged widespread favouritism in the award of public works contracts in Arunachal Pradesh, contending that development contracts worth approximately Rs 1,245 crore were allotted through tenders, while an additional Rs 25 crore was disbursed through direct work orders, to firms owned by or linked to the Chief Minister's family members and close associates.

The PIL specifically named M/s Brand Eagles, stated to be owned by Chief Minister Khandu's wife, and M/s Alliance Trading Co, stated to be owned by his nephew and MLA Tsering Tashi (representing the Tawang constituency). The petition sought a CBI or Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe into the alleged irregularities. Similar concerns about the integrity of government tendering processes have been raised in other states, but the Arunachal Pradesh case stands out for the scale of the allegations and the direct link to the Chief Minister's family.

Acting on the PIL, the Supreme Court, in an order passed in April 2026, directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations. The bench ordered the CBI to start the enquiry within two weeks and to cover the execution of public works contracts and work orders from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2025. The Court's decision to invoke the CBI rather than relying on state agencies reflected its concern about the possibility of a conflict of interest, given that the allegations were directed at the sitting Chief Minister.

CBI's Status Report and Allegations of Non-Cooperation

In its status report filed before the Court on August 3, the CBI detailed significant obstacles in carrying out the court-ordered enquiry. The agency stated that it had repeatedly sought access to records relating to public works contracts, including tender documents, bid evaluation reports, work orders, and payment records. However, the state government had allegedly failed to provide the requested documents despite multiple formal requests. The CBI characterized this as a pattern of non-cooperation that was obstructing its investigation.

The Court took the CBI's allegations seriously, noting that non-cooperation with a court-ordered investigation amounts to a breach of the Court's directions. The bench observed that the CBI probe had been directed by the Supreme Court itself, and any obstruction by state officials would have serious consequences. The importance of compliance with court orders was underscored, drawing parallels with cases such as the Telangana High Court's order removing a commissioner for repeated disobedience of court orders. The Court directed both the Chief Secretary and the Principal Secretary (Home) to personally appear before it on August 24, 2026, with their responses to the CBI's allegations.

The Contracts Under Scrutiny

The contracts at the centre of the investigation relate to public infrastructure projects in Arunachal Pradesh, including roads, bridges, government buildings, and other development works. The petitioners alleged that tender processes were manipulated to ensure that contracts were awarded to firms linked to the Chief Minister's family. The contracts collectively worth approximately Rs 1,270 crore (Rs 1,245 crore through tenders plus Rs 25 crore through work orders) form a significant portion of the state's infrastructure spending during the decade under review.

Arunachal Pradesh, a strategically important state bordering China, Myanmar, and Bhutan, has seen substantial Central and state government investment in infrastructure development. The regulatory framework governing environmental clearances for such projects is particularly relevant in the North-Eastern states, where infrastructure development often intersects with environmental and tribal land concerns. The allegations in this case raise questions about whether the benefits of public investment reached the intended beneficiaries or were diverted to private interests connected to the political leadership.

Legal Provisions and Constitutional Context

The PIL was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Public interest litigation has been a powerful tool for citizens and civil society organisations seeking accountability from the government, and the procedure for filing such petitions has been well-established through decades of judicial pronouncements. In this case, the petitioners relied on the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to a fair and transparent use of public resources as the constitutional basis for their challenge.

The case also engages provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as the allegations, if proved, could amount to criminal misconduct by public servants. The CBI's preliminary enquiry is the first step in determining whether a formal FIR should be registered. The Court's decision to summon senior state officials for personal appearance is an extraordinary step that reflects the gravity of the situation. It aligns with the Court's approach in other matters where administrative action was scrutinized for compliance with legal standards. Judicial interventions of this nature have also been witnessed in cases involving governance challenges in other North-Eastern states.

Political and Governance Context

Pema Khandu has served as the Chief Minister of Arunachal Pradesh since 2016, making him one of the longest-serving chief ministers in the North-Eastern region. The state, with a population of approximately 1.4 million, receives substantial Central funding for infrastructure and development projects. The allegations in the PIL, if substantiated, would suggest that a significant portion of the public infrastructure spending was channelled to entities with direct family connections to the Chief Minister. The case has triggered a broader debate about the adequacy of anti-corruption mechanisms in smaller states where political leadership often exercises outsized influence over the administrative machinery.

The Supreme Court's intervention through the CBI probe is notable because Arunachal Pradesh is a BJP-ruled state, and the CBI operates under the Central government, which is also led by the BJP. The Court's decision to order the probe despite this political alignment reflects the judiciary's commitment to holding public officials accountable regardless of party affiliations. The CBI's subsequent complaint of non-cooperation by the state government adds another layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about the extent to which state bureaucracies shield their political leadership from scrutiny.

Implications and Next Steps

The case has significant implications for the accountability of state governments when the CBI is directed to investigate matters involving the political leadership. The Supreme Court's willingness to summon the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary (Home) for personal appearance sends a strong message that non-cooperation with a court-ordered investigation will not be tolerated. The proceedings have also drawn national attention to governance practices in Arunachal Pradesh and the broader issue of conflicts of interest in the award of public contracts.

The next hearing on August 24, 2026, will be closely watched. If the CBI's allegations of non-cooperation are substantiated, the Court may consider further directions, including contempt proceedings against the officials concerned. The investigation itself could lead to the registration of FIRs and criminal proceedings if the preliminary enquiry reveals sufficient evidence of corruption. The case underscores the importance of independent investigative agencies in ensuring that government contracts and financial dealings are conducted transparently, and that public resources are not misused for private benefit. The outcome of this case could set important precedents for the conduct of CBI probes directed by the Supreme Court in matters involving sitting chief ministers and state governments.