As per the petitioner, on August 24, 2026, the Minister had openly made a statement on the assembly floor, confessing on record that he had paid a bribe to a public official/former Minister to secure official recognition and permission for his private educational institution.

The petitioner submitted that the Minister had stood by his statement and even offered to act as a witness to the crime. The petitioner submitted that the Minister had provided detailed information regarding the exact location where the extortion and bribe collection was carried out, the precise monetary amounts extorted from the institution owners, and specific sums forcibly collected from minority educational institutions in the State.

The petitioner submitted that payment of bribe to public servants is a cognisable offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He added that the provisions give immunity to a bribe giver only if that person was compelled to give a bribe and reports the matter to the law enforcement agency or investigating authority within a statutory period of 7 days from the date of giving undue advantage.

The petitioner submitted that the Minister had admitted to payment of bribe and had failed to report the same to the DVAC or any police agency within the mandatory 7-day window. He thus submitted that the Minister could not claim any protection under the Act and was fully liable for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The petitioner further submitted that he had given a formal written criminal complaint to the DVAC requesting immediate registration of FIR under Sections 8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but there was complete inaction on the part of the agencies to act upon the complaint or to investigate the offence.

He pointed out that as per Section 173 of the BNSS (Section 154 CrPC), the police authorities are statutorily bound to register an FIR immediately upon receiving information disclosing a cognizable offence. However, despite receiving information about the crime, the police had failed to take any action, thus violating the law.

Thus, the petitioner has sought registration of an FIR and for conducting an independent, thorough, and time-bound investigation into the extortion network and the regulatory violations surrounding Wilson's educational institutions.

Case Title: K Sivasubramaniam v The DVAC and Another

Case No: WP 40565 of 2026