📷 Image: Wikimedia Commons / India Post, Government of India
Crime
Patna High Court Criticises ED, SVU Probe in Bihar Tender Scam
✍️ Amar Ujala · Bihar
🗓 18 Oct 2026, 06:45 PM
👁 14
The Patna High Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate and Special Vigilance Unit's investigation into a multi‑crore tender fraud in Bihar, suggesting the probe appears to protect some officials while targeting others.
The Patna High Court has openly challenged the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Special Vigilance Unit (SVU) in their inquiry into a alleged tender scam involving several crore rupees in Bihar. The bench observed that the investigation seems to be structured in a way that shields certain officials while implicating others, raising concerns about impartiality.
The court's remarks come amid growing public scrutiny over the tender irregularities, which have prompted the central investigative agencies to step in. While the ED and SVU have not disclosed detailed findings, the judiciary's intervention underscores the need for a transparent and unbiased probe.
Legal experts note that the High Court's criticism could compel the agencies to reassess their investigative approach, ensuring that due process is upheld and that no undue influence affects the outcome of the case.
No further details on the identities of the officials or the exact financial quantum were provided in the court's observation, and the agencies have not responded publicly to the remarks.
The development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing scrutiny of procurement practices in the state, highlighting the judiciary's role in overseeing investigative agencies.
The court's remarks come amid growing public scrutiny over the tender irregularities, which have prompted the central investigative agencies to step in. While the ED and SVU have not disclosed detailed findings, the judiciary's intervention underscores the need for a transparent and unbiased probe.
Legal experts note that the High Court's criticism could compel the agencies to reassess their investigative approach, ensuring that due process is upheld and that no undue influence affects the outcome of the case.
No further details on the identities of the officials or the exact financial quantum were provided in the court's observation, and the agencies have not responded publicly to the remarks.
The development adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing scrutiny of procurement practices in the state, highlighting the judiciary's role in overseeing investigative agencies.