He wanted more CBI papers on the record before charges were framed. The High Court said no.

He wanted more Central Bureau of Investigation papers on the record before charges were framed. The Madras High Court said no.

On Friday, 21 August 2026, Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan dismissed former Union Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Member of Parliament A. Raja’s criminal original petition seeking a direction to CBI to bring certain documents on record in a disproportionate-assets case registered against him, his wife M.A. Parameshwari and others in 2015. The court heard Raja’s counsel and CBI special public prosecutor K. Srinivasan. Raja had come after a special court for Member of Parliament and Member of the Legislative Assembly cases in Chennai dismissed a similar plea on 8 December 2025. A High Court dismissal of a challenge to that rejection is a process order. It is not a finding that the assets case is proved.

The background has two CBI files. One is the Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch New Delhi case of October 2009 on 2G spectrum allocation during Raja’s tenure as Union Telecommunication Minister. Separately, the Central Bureau of Investigation Anti-Corruption Branch Chennai registered a first-information report on 8 August 2015 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging wealth disproportionate to known sources. This cutting is about the 2015 assets file and Friday’s petition. It is not a re-trial of the spectrum case.

On the 2015 first-information report, Raja was accused of having amassed disproportionate assets of ₹27.92 crore between 13 October 1999 and 30 September 2010, when he served as a Union Minister. After investigation, CBI Chennai filed a chargesheet in 2022 against Raja and five others, accusing him of being in possession of ₹5.53 crore disproportionate to known sources. The agency’s arithmetic on that chargesheet is specific. Assets were ₹2.2 lakh at the start of the check period in 1999 and had grown to ₹5.90 crore in 2010. Known income in the period was put at ₹95.57 lakh and expenses at ₹60.69 lakh; the rest was treated as disproportionate. ₹27.92 crore is the 2015 first-information-report alleged figure. ₹5.53 crore is the 2022 chargesheet alleged figure. They are not the same number. This desk will not collapse them.

At the charge-framing stage Raja alleged CBI had not placed all investigation documents, including his 22 August 2015 representation seeking closure of the first-information report and inter-branch correspondences. The special court held that non-production of that representation may not be significant at charge-framing and that he could produce unimpeachable documents himself. The High Court dismissed the challenge to that rejection. The petition was about documents on the record. It was not a discharge order. This desk will not invent the text of the 2015 representation or a fresh list of missing papers.

Chennai holds the special court and the High Court sitting. This desk will not invent a property schedule, a benami name beyond those already on the tip, or a defence quotation that is not locked here. It will not put a photograph of A. Raja on this page.

Until a trial court frames and tries the charges, the public ledger is an 8 August 2015 first-information report, a check period from 13 October 1999 to 30 September 2010, a 2022 chargesheet against Raja and five others alleging ₹5.53 crore disproportionate assets against a ₹27.92 crore first-information-report figure, opening assets of ₹2.2 lakh and 2010 assets of ₹5.90 crore, known income ₹95.57 lakh and expenses ₹60.69 lakh, a special-court dismissal on 8 December 2025, and a Madras High Court dismissal on 21 August 2026 of the plea to force extra CBI papers onto the record at charge-framing. These remain CBI charges. They are not a conviction.