Tamil Nadu: Ex DMK Education Minister Anbil Mahesh Arrested In Alleged Rs 100-Crore Scam After HC Rejects Bail

Chennai Police have arrested former Tamil Nadu School Education Minister and DMK leader Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi in connection with an alleged Rs 100-crore scam involving approvals and recognition for private schools.

The case concerns allegations that money was collected from private school managements on the promise of securing government approvals, permanent recognition and permission to upgrade schools, ANI reported.

The arrest comes after the Madras High Court on Monday, October 26, dismissed Mahesh's anticipatory bail plea in the case. Justice V Lakshminarayan dismissed the petition, with a detailed order awaited.

Also Read: Jamia Protest: Fresh Clashes Break Out Despite Election Order, Students Detained

How The Alleged Private School Approval Scam Emerged

The FIR was registered following a complaint by the former general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Association. The complainant alleged that the association's president, BT Arasukumar, and other office-bearers collected membership and subscription fees from private schools by promising to secure no-objection certificates (NOCs), licences, recognition and renewals, but failed to fulfil those promises.

The FIR was initially registered under Sections 316(5) and 318(4), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

Subsequently, the prosecution filed an alteration report before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking to add offences under Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and name Mahesh as an accused. The case was later amended to include him, Live Law reported.

Mahesh Denies Involvement, Had Sought To Quash FIR

Mahesh had also approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him.

He argued that there was no record showing that he had received illegal gratification and that no overt act had been attributed to him.

Mahesh further submitted that the complaint appeared to stem from differences between the complainant and the association's president following the elections and a change in government.

He also argued that, according to the complaint and witness statements, certain individuals had collected money from private schools using his name, but no specific act of wrongdoing had been attributed to him.