Investigation reveals collection of ‘party fund’ during Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi’s tenure as School Education Minister, CCB tells Madras High Court

The CCB’s submission concerns alleged payments collected from private school managements while Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi served as School Education Minister in the previous DMK regime. The money was described as “party fund.” This matters because the collection allegedly forms part of a wider fraud investigation involving more than ₹100 crore.

The police said the case initially involved B.T. Arasakumar, president of an unregistered private-schools association, and his co-accused Muthukumar. According to the counter affidavit, the investigation later revealed circumstances involving the former minister’s conduct, official position, interactions and subsequent administrative action. The FIR was then altered to include him and charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The High Court has not decided whether the allegations are proved. Anbil Mahesh has asked the court to quash the FIR against him alone. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan adjourned the plea to October 29, 2026, after accepting the police counter affidavit.

The case being investigated is described as an over ₹100 crore fraud case. That figure signals a very large alleged financial operation, which is why the investigation and the legal safeguards around it matter. The High Court is examining a petition by Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, but the petition seeks relief only for him.

The original FIR did not name the former minister. According to the investigating officer, it named B.T. Arasakumar, president of an unregistered association of private schools, and his co-accused Muthukumar. Police alleged that the pair had collected crores of rupees from school managements. The article does not state the exact amount allegedly collected from each school.

After the investigation developed, Anbil Mahesh was added as the fifth accused. The FIR was also altered to include Prevention of Corruption Act charges. The High Court adjourned his quashing petition until October 29, 2026.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal police record made after information indicates that a cognisable offence may have occurred. It starts the criminal investigation and records the initial allegations. An FIR is not a final finding of guilt. It sets out the suspected offences and the people initially connected to them.

Police may later alter the FIR when investigation reveals new facts. For example, investigators may add a person as an accused or include another legal charge. In this case, the CCB said Anbil Mahesh was not named at first. It later added him as the fifth accused and included charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The change does not prove the new allegations. It records the police’s developing case and allows the investigation to address the additional allegations. Anbil Mahesh has challenged the FIR against him, and the High Court is scheduled to hear that plea on October 29, 2026.

Anbil Mahesh was not named in the original FIR. The CCB told the High Court that the first case named B.T. Arasakumar and Muthukumar, who were accused of collecting crores from private school managements. The former minister was added later, making him the fifth accused in the altered FIR.

According to the investigating officer, the decision followed evidence or circumstances that emerged during the investigation. The counter affidavit referred to the former minister’s conduct, interactions, official position and later administrative action. It also said the FIR was changed to include charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The article does not identify specific transactions proving the alleged involvement.

Anbil Mahesh is seeking to quash the FIR against him alone. The police opposed that request and called his grounds unsustainable and misconceived. Justice V. Lakshminarayanan accepted the counter affidavit and adjourned the quashing petition to October 29, 2026.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, generally requires prior approval before police begin an inquiry or investigation into alleged corruption connected with a public servant’s official recommendations or decisions. The safeguard is intended to protect official decision-making from investigations based only on disputed administrative actions. It does not decide whether an accused person is guilty.

The CCB said the required approval was obtained from the State government on September 7, 2026. Police relied on that approval before proceeding against Anbil Mahesh, who had served as School Education Minister. The investigating officer rejected the petitioner’s claim that approval was obtained earlier, on June 23, 2026.

The dispute is legally important because the High Court must consider whether the investigation began with the required permission. The police said the approval was valid and came before the investigation. The article records the competing positions but does not report the court’s final ruling on Section 17A.

The dispute matters because Section 17A approval is a procedural requirement before certain corruption investigations involving public servants. Anbil Mahesh argued that approval should have come from the Governor. The police took the opposite view and said approval from the State government was legally sufficient.

The investigating officer told the High Court that State government approval was obtained on September 7, 2026, before the investigation against the former minister began. Police also disputed the petitioner’s date, saying approval was not obtained on June 23, 2026. If the court accepted the petitioner’s position, it could question whether the investigation satisfied the required legal procedure.

The issue forms part of Anbil Mahesh’s plea to quash the FIR against him. The police asked the court to reject that plea. The article does not state that the court has resolved the Governor-versus-government question; the hearing was adjourned to October 29, 2026.

Quashing the FIR against Anbil Mahesh would remove the challenged criminal case against him, subject to the court’s order. It would mean the allegations recorded against him in this FIR could not continue in their present form. Such an order would address his individual plea, not automatically decide whether the alleged fraud occurred.

The petition is specifically to quash the FIR with respect to Anbil Mahesh alone. The original FIR named B.T. Arasakumar and Muthukumar, and the police described them as accused of collecting crores from private school managements. Therefore, a ruling in the former minister’s favour would not necessarily erase every part of the wider case or end proceedings involving other accused people.

If the court rejects the plea, the investigation against Anbil Mahesh could continue under the altered FIR and Prevention of Corruption Act charges. The article gives no final outcome. The next reported step is the adjourned hearing on October 29, 2026.