India’s Dirtiest Politics — 100 Days, 100 Scandals Day 84: N Rangaswamy — Puducherry’s most recycled politician
THE CHARGE N Rangaswamy, former Chief Minister of Puducherry, is alleged to have misused his position to award government contracts to firms linked to his relatives and associates between 2001 and 2021. A 2017 CBI chargesheet accused him of irregularities in the award of a ₹116 crore road construction contract to a company allegedly connected to his family. No conviction has been secured. The case remains pending.
THE BACKSTORY N Rangaswamy is a political survivor in Puducherry, a Union Territory where power has swung between the Congress, the All India N.R. Congress (AINRC)—a party he founded—and the BJP. First elected as a Congress MLA in 1990, he became Chief Minister in 2001, then again in 2006, 2011, and 2021. His longevity stems from a mix of welfare populism, caste arithmetic, and an ability to switch alliances—Congress to AINRC to BJP and back—without losing his core support base.
Puducherry’s small size (just 1.2 million people) and its status as a Union Territory with a Lieutenant Governor have made it a laboratory for political experiments. Contracts for infrastructure, liquor licenses, and real estate are lucrative, and oversight is weak. Rangaswamy’s AINRC, formed in 2011 after a fallout with the Congress, became a vehicle for his ambitions, but also a shield against scrutiny. His government’s decisions—from road tenders to land allotments—were often justified as "development," even when they benefited the same set of contractors.
THE MECHANISM The most documented case involves the ₹116 crore contract for the construction of the Puducherry-Karaikal four-lane highway, awarded in 2013 to a consortium led by KNR Constructions Ltd. The CBI’s 2017 chargesheet alleged that the tender process was rigged to favor KNR, which had no prior experience in highway projects. The agency claimed that Rangaswamy’s government ignored technical bids from more qualified firms and manipulated the evaluation criteria to ensure KNR’s selection.
The chargesheet cited internal government emails and file notings showing that the Public Works Department (PWD) had raised red flags about KNR’s eligibility, but these were overruled by the Chief Minister’s office. A subsequent Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report in 2015 flagged "undue haste" in awarding the contract and noted that the project’s cost was inflated by 22% compared to similar roadworks in neighboring Tamil Nadu.
Separately, a 2016 sting operation by Tamil news channel Puthiya Thalaimurai showed a PWD engineer claiming that KNR had paid kickbacks to officials, including a "percentage to the top." The channel aired footage of the engineer, who later retracted his statement under pressure. No FIR was filed based on the sting.
The CBI also alleged that KNR’s promoter, K Narasimha Reddy, had close ties to Rangaswamy’s family. Reddy’s company had previously secured contracts for Puducherry’s Smart City project and stormwater drain works, both awarded during Rangaswamy’s tenure. In 2014, Reddy’s son married into a family with business links to Rangaswamy’s relatives, a connection the CBI cited as evidence of a conflict of interest.
THE INVESTIGATION The case was first probed by the Puducherry Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (PVACB), which filed an FIR in 2016. However, the investigation stalled after the agency’s director, S Sundar, was transferred within months. The case was then handed over to the CBI in 2017, following a directive from the Madras High Court.
The CBI filed a chargesheet in 2017 against Rangaswamy, KNR Constructions, and six others under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code sections on cheating and criminal conspiracy. The agency relied on: - Government file notings showing the PWD’s objections to KNR’s bid. - Bank records of transactions between KNR and subcontractors allegedly linked to Rangaswamy’s associates. - Call data records of conversations between KNR officials and government staff during the tender process.
However, the trial has moved at a glacial pace. Key witnesses, including the PWD engineer who appeared in the sting, turned hostile. In 2020, the CBI sought to drop charges against Rangaswamy, citing "lack of evidence," but the Madras High Court rejected the request and ordered the trial to proceed. As of 2024, the case remains pending in a Puducherry court, with no hearings scheduled in the past year.
THE LEGAL STATUS Rangaswamy is accused in a CBI case (RC 02(A)/2017) under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 420 (cheating), and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial is ongoing, with no conviction or acquittal. The CBI’s attempt to withdraw charges was rejected by the Madras High Court in 2020. Rangaswamy has denied all allegations, calling them politically motivated.
THE PATTERN Rangaswamy’s case fits into the "contracts-for-cronies" model, a recurring feature in Indian politics where infrastructure projects become vehicles for patronage. In Puducherry, this pattern is amplified by the UT’s small size—where a handful of contractors dominate tenders—and the lack of robust oversight. Similar cases have surfaced in other states: - Andhra Pradesh’s Polavaram project, where contracts were allegedly awarded to firms linked to then-CM Chandrababu Naidu’s family. - Maharashtra’s irrigation scam, where tenders were rigged to benefit a select group of contractors. - Karnataka’s road contracts, where the Lokayukta found that 70% of projects were awarded to just 10 firms.
In each case, the mechanism is the same: manipulated tender processes, inflated costs, and kickbacks disguised as "consultancy fees." The difference in Puducherry is the scale—smaller budgets, but higher concentration of power in the Chief Minister’s office.
THE QUESTION NOBODY ANSWERED Why did the CBI, which had built a case based on file notings, bank records, and witness statements, suddenly seek to drop charges against Rangaswamy in 2020? The agency’s affidavit cited "new evidence," but never disclosed what that evidence was. The Madras High Court rejected the request, but the CBI has not explained why it changed its stance—despite having earlier argued that the case was "watertight." Was there political pressure, or did the agency simply lose interest? The court record is silent.