Madras High Court dismisses A. Raja’s plea in disproportionate assets case probed by CBI

Madras High Court dismisses A. Raja's plea in disproportionate assets case probed by CBI Justice G.K.

Key points

• The Madras High Court on Friday (August 21, 2026) dismissed a petition filed by former Union Minister and DMK MP A.
• Subsequently, in 2015, the CBI's ACB in Chennai had registered a separate First Information Report (FIR) against Mr.
• After taking into consideration his known sources of income of ₹95.57 lakh and expenses of ₹60.69 lakh during the period, the rest was considered disproportionate.
• The matter was connected to a criminal case registered by the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in New Delhi against Mr.
• After completing the investigation, the CBI's Chennai unit had filed a chargesheet before the special court against Mr.

Madras High Court dismisses A. Raja's plea in disproportionate assets case probed by CBI Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan refuses to direct the investigating agency to bring certain documents on record before the special court for MP/MLA cases. Published – August 21, 2026 12: 14 pm IST – CHENNAI. A. Raja. File Photo Credit: SHIV KUMAR PUSHPAKAR.

Meanwhile, the Madras High Court on Friday (August 21, 2026) dismissed a petition filed by former Union Minister and DMK MP A. Raja seeking a direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to bring on record certain documents in a disproportionate assets case registered against him, his wife M.A. Parameshwari, and others, in 2015.

Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan rejected the criminal original petition filed by him after hearing the arguments advanced by his counsel and CBI special public prosecutor K. Srinivasan. The petitioner had approached the High Court after a special court for MP/MLA cases in Chennai had dismissed a similar plea on December 8, 2025.

Meanwhile, the matter was connected to a criminal case registered by the CBI's Anti-Corruption Branch in New Delhi against Mr. Raja and others in October 2009 regarding the allocation of 2G spectrum, during his tenure as Union Telecommunication Minister, on a first-come-first-serve basis and allegedly at undervalued rates.

Subsequently, in 2015, the CBI's ACB in Chennai had registered a separate First Information Report (FIR) against Mr. Raja, his wife, and friends under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on charges of amassing wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income.

When he had served as a Union Minister holding different portfolios, the FIR registered on August 8, 2015, had accused the former Minister, his wife, family members, and friends of having amassed disproprotionate assets to the tune of ₹27.92 crore between October 13, 1999, and September 30, 2010.

After completing the investigation, the CBI's Chennai unit had filed a chargesheet before the special court against Mr. Raja and five others in 2022. The chargesheet accused him of having been in possession of ₹5.53 crore disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period.

Notably, the CBI remarked, the assets of the former Union Minister was only ₹2.2 lakh during the beginning of the check period in 1999 but they had grown to ₹5.90 crore in 2010. After taking into consideration his known sources of income of ₹95.57 lakh and expenses of ₹60.69 lakh during the period, the rest was considered disproportionate.

When the case was at the stage of framing of charges, Mr. Raja filed an application before the special court in 2025 accusing the CBI of not having submitted before the court all documents related to the investigation so that he could defend himself effectively when the court frames the charges against him.

Claiming to have created a representation to the CBI on August 22, 2015, urging the agency to close the FIR on a number of grounds, the petitioner noted, the CBI had not submitted a copy of that representation, and the decision taken by it on that representation before the special court for MP/MLA cases.

Further, claiming the CBI's ACB in Chennai had received a number of materials from the CBI's ACB in New Delhi, the petitioner stated, those correspondences between the two branches and other correspondences through which the agency had collected materials must additionally be produced before the court.

Nevertheless, the special court rejected his plea stating that the non-production of the August 22, 2015, representation by the CBI may not be of significance when it comes to framing charges and that the petitioner could always produce unimpeachable documents to argue as to why charges should not be framed against him.

He had approached the High Court challenging the rejection of his plea by the special court.

For now, madras High Court dismisses A. Raja's plea in disproportionate assets case probed remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.