Pre-poll storm in TN over Rs 2,000-cr advance sanction for roads works

In a controversy that has sparked accusations of pre-election graft and procedural violations, the Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports Department faces scrutiny for granting advance administrative sanctions worth Rs 2,000 crore for road and bridge projects slated for the 2026-27 financial year.

Critics, including the anti-corruption NGO Arappor Iyakkam, claim this move circumvents standard budgeting protocols and suspect it could facilitate “kickbacks”, especially with Assembly elections barely months away.

The allegations stem from Government Order (GO) No 06, issued on January 14, which provides "advance administrative sanction" for projects under the Comprehensive Road Infrastructure Development Programme (CRIDP).

This comes even as the state grapples with funding shortages in the current fiscal, where only Rs 5,955 crore has been allocated out of the initially-sanctioned Rs 6,929 crore for similar works. The department annually receives between Rs 5,000 crore and Rs 7,000 crore through CRIDP for integrated road development, with the overall highways budget hovering around Rs 20,000 crore, tabled in March and approved by the legislature in May.

'Pre-poll quick bribes'

Jayaram Venkatesan, convenor of Arappor Iyakkam, in a detailed statement to The Federal, described the process as an attempt that could lead to amassing "quick bribe money" before polls.

"The government must first announce allocations in the (state) budget, issue a GO, and then call tenders," he said. "Floating tenders under 'advance sanction' without assured funds risks projects stalling or funds vanishing. All road works are being tendered without actual allocation, which raises a strong suspicion if it’s done to make quick money before elections," he alleged, noting a sudden surge in tenders pre-elections, far exceeding normal levels.

The GO contrasts sharply with standard timelines. For 2025-26, GO No 105 was issued on July 2, 2025, following correspondence dating back to April 9, 2025, a process that took months. In comparison, GO No 06 was fast-tracked.

Also Read: Stalin takes jibe at Modi, says 'double engine' will not run in TN

Proposals from Chief Engineer (Construction & Maintenance) KG Sathyaprakash were submitted on January 8 and 9, 2026. After intervening weekends (January 10-11) and the Pongal holiday period, Highways Secretary Selvaraj IAS granted approval on January 14, a day before Pongal. Finance Department concurrence was also secured the same day, leading to the GO's immediate release.

Haste raises eyebrows

A retired official told The Federal that such approvals typically take three months, calling this "superfast" process suspicious. Post-GO, tenders for 80 projects including technical estimates, designs, prequalification documents, bills of quantity, and notices were prepared and uploaded online within days (January 20-22), right after the holidays.

This haste has raised eyebrows, as the GO refers to a need for an additional Rs 10,000 crore to achieve a trillion-dollar economy by 2030, including upgrading state highways to four-lanes, building bypasses to reduce congestion, enhancing 300 km of industrial roads, and improving 1,000 km of last-mile connectivity.

Arappor Iyakkam argues this violates the Tamil Nadu Highways Manual (Volume 4, Parts 1&2, Para 169(a)) and Article 165 of the Tamil Nadu Financial Code (Volume I), which prohibit entering into contracts without duly-provided funds or assurances.

"Tenders for 2026-27 works are being called based solely on Finance Department consent, without legislative approval of the (state) budget," Venkatesan said. "This is illegal, as funds may not be available, and it's clearly timed before the model code."

Funding crunch

The NGO points to funding realities in the current year when allocations fell short due to deficits, with some funds reserved for spillover projects from prior years.

Supplementary grants for additional needs are typically sought in the November winter session of Assembly via demand for grants. Questions abound — why advance sanctions when a new government could handle this after the elections? How will Rs 2,000 crore be sourced amid shortages? Can contracts be executed immediately?

Opposition parties and activists are demanding an inquiry. PMK leader Anbumani Ramadoss condemned the DMK government's decision to grant administrative approval for tendering road projects, previously announced but unimplemented in cities like Chennai using funds from next year's state budget.

Fund allocation

According to established legal procedures and conventions, additional funds for the Highways Department can be secured through amendments to the allocated budget, subject to Finance Department approval. The budget procedure manual permits such revisions within the first week of January. Furthermore, the Finance Department holds the authority to finalise and allocate the amended amounts by the last week of March.

Also Read: 2026 elections: Can Modi’s early Southern foray gain dividends in TN and Kerala?

For ongoing projects that require extra funding beyond initial approvals, or for newly-announced schemes by the government or ministers, supplementary grant demands must be presented and approved by the legislature during the winter session of the Legislative Assembly. However, the core allegation centres on the lack of proper fund allocation for initiatives meant for implementation in the upcoming financial year.

"There is absolutely no justification for granting administrative sanction this year itself without following due process for budgeting in the next fiscal cycle," a retired chief engineer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Federal.

Highways Dept rejects allegations

The Tamil Nadu Highways and Minor Ports Department has categorically rejected allegations that GO No 6 was motivated by theforthcoming assembly elections or intended to facilitate irregularities.

In a detailed statement issued through its Public Relations Officer, Chief Engineer Sathyaprakash termed the allegations “unfounded, misleading, and not supported by facts, records, or established administrative practices.”

Also Read: Modi tears into DMK in TN, accuses Stalin govt of promoting corruption, mafia, crime

Advance sanction of infrastructure works is a long-standing and routine administrative practice followed by successive governments in Tamil Nadu to ensure continuity of projects and avoid delays or cost escalation, said the statement. Similar advance sanctions were issued in the previous years, including Rs 112.07 crore for permanent flood restoration in 2019-20, Rs 139.67 crore for widening and improvements in Coimbatore Corporation area, and Rs 392.16 crore for permanent flood restoration works in 2020-21, it added.

Earlier, too, part of the amount was advance-sanctioned and later adjusted in the subsequent year’s CRIDP GO, the department stressed. It added that such advance approvals are issued once the current year’s sanctioned budget is exhausted, a standard mechanism to prevent disruption in ongoing infrastructure development.

'No new proposals'

Regarding the bypass projects (approximately Rs 470 crore) included in the GO, the department clarified that these are not new proposals. Land acquisition had been sanctioned in earlier financial years, with the process either completed or in final stages in most cases. The current sanction simply enables immediate execution once land is fully available, it claimed.

The Rs 112.50 crore allocated for major bridges addresses long-pending public demands raised by citizens and elected representatives from all political parties, aimed at improving safety, connectivity, and traffic flow, it added.

Additionally, Rs 1,358.25 crore has been sanctioned under the Chief Minister’s Road Development Programme for missing links in already four-laned roads to eliminate bottlenecks and reduce accidents and fatalities. Another Rs 59.25 crore under Other District Roads and Special Component Plan targets repairs in cyclone-affected hilly regions and areas inhabited by underprivileged communities, focusing on better connectivity and growth. The department emphasised that no new or special sanctions have been made.

‘No factual basis’

All works covered under GO No 6 were already in various stages of planning, land acquisition, or processing, some initiated during the previous government, and will be funded through regular CRIDP 2026-27 allocations, with prior provisions made from capital works, said the department.

To ensure transparency, all tenders for these works will be processed exclusively through the online tender portal in strict compliance with the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and Rules, 2000. No offline tenders will be permitted, it said.

Also Read: AIADMK’s poll promises put Tamil Nadu’s welfare politics, fiscal health in spotlight

Concluding the statement, the department asserted that the GO represents continuation of essential, long-pending infrastructure projects for public benefit and road safety, fully adhering to financial rules and statutory norms. It described criticism labelling the order as a “scam” as wholly unjustified and devoid of factual basis.

Inadequate, says NGO

But Venkatesan dismissed the Chief Engineer’s clarification as inadequate and accused the department of violating established procedures while displaying unexplained urgency in tendering the works.

“The administrative sanctions cited by the Chief Engineer as precedents were for urgent works such as repairs to flood damages. In contrast, all 80 works covered in the GO in question are for widening and strengthening highways and construction of bridges, none of which can be classified as urgent,” he said.

He pointed out that the Chief Engineer justified the sanction by stating that the works had been demanded by public representatives for a long time and that land acquisition was fully or partially completed.

Also Read: Is Stalin right in his Pongal pitch? Culture, religion, politics, and more

“This reveals the Chief Engineer’s ignorance of established procedure. After administrative sanction is accorded, detailed estimates are prepared before tenders are called. Yet here, tenders were invited within three days of the sanction. This raises strong suspicion that everything was pre-planned,” he alleged.

Venkatesan also found it “strange” that the Chief Engineer was issuing explanations for a GO issued after consultation with the Finance Department, while “the silence of the Finance Department is confusing the public,” he added.

‘Extraordinary urgency’

Highlighting a key departure from past practice, Venkatesan noted, “Though advance sanctions were accorded earlier, tenders were invited only after funds were actually provided. In this case, tenders have been floated immediately after the sanction, even though the GO is silent on financial allocation and the department’s own statement confirms that funds will come from next year’s budget (CRIDP 2026-27). If funds are only available next year, what is the urgency in calling tenders now?”

He described the invitation of tenders without assured funds “highly irregular” and questioned the reduction of the tender submission period from the mandatory 30 days to just 15 days. “What justifies such extraordinary urgency? The Chief Engineer’s haste cannot be explained,” he said.

Also Read: Dayanidhi Maran sparks row comparing women’s progress in North India and TN

Addressing the department’s claim that advance sanction ensures continuity of works, Venkatesan he the CRIDP is not a single project but a collection of individual works, each costing a few crores. “The question of continuity does not arise. These works can be taken up one by one without any difficulty,” he argued.

Venkatesan also criticised the tone of the Chief Engineer’s clarification, calling it “untenable”. “A government employee must remember that the government is permanent, irrespective of the party in power. Referring to the ‘previous government’ and implicitly denying any election-related motive only exposes the partisan nature of the statement,” he said.

The Federal has reached out to the Highways and Finance Departments for further response to these fresh allegations. Any clarification received will be published in full.