Plea in Madras High Court insists I-T dept probe into Ramanathapuram MP Navas Kani’s assets

Madras High Court orders Income Tax probe into Ramanathapuram MP Navas Kani's alleged asset misrepresentation and unlawful enrichment.

The Madras High Court, on Tuesday (February 17, 2025), ordered notice to the Income Tax department on a writ petition seeking an inquiry into alleged suppression of income, misrepresentation and unlawful enrichment by Ramanathapuram Member of Parliament K. Navas Kani of the Indian Union Muslim League (IUML).

Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan recorded the presence of Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan and permitted I-T department senior standing counsel A.P. Srinivas to take notice, returnable by a week, on behalf of the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation).

Tirunelveli-based advocate K. Venkatachalapathy had filed the writ petition. His counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan stated that Mr. Kani had served as a the Member of Parliament representing Ramanathapuram constituency between 2019-2024 and got elected again from the same constituency in 2024 too.

Comparing the assets and liabilities disclosed by him in an affidavit filed along with the nomination forms in 2019 and 2024, the petitioner claimed that there were several discrepancies and the assets of the MP as well as his family members had increased manifold during his first term as an MP.

“The increase in assets during five-year period is extraordinary and steep. Shri Navas Kani has created these considerable assets by misusing his official position. Given his minimal legitimate income, he has illegally enriched himself misappropriating public funds assigned to Members of Parliament for the development of their constituencies, thereby defrauding the nation’s exchequer. The assets acquired by him are disproportionate to all his known sources of income,” the petitioner’s affidavit read.

Stating that the MP did have any major known sources of income but for the remuneration he received for being a director of a private company and that his wife was receiving some rental income, the petitioner said, the MP and his family members had a net surplus of only ₹5.74 lakh during his first term as a legislator but they had acquired assets to the tune of ₹20.84 crore.