SAVE MON REGION FEDERATION & ANR. versus THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 5 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 06-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 5 S.C.R. 1 : 2026 INSC 320
Save Mon Region Federation & Anr. 
v. 
The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 54 of 2024)
06 April 2026
[Vikram Nath,* Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the 
allegations and the prima facie material relating to the award and 
execution of public works contracts, including the asserted pattern 
of repeated departures from open and competitive tendering, 
gaps in official documentation, and the stated award of works to 
Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 or firms and individuals related to them, 
warrant a direction by this Court for an independent investigation 
by the CBI and or the constitution of a SIT, and, if so, the scope 
of such investigation and the consequential directions required to 
secure the integrity of the process.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Arts.14, 21, 32 – Public procurement – 
Award of public contracts – The present Writ Petition u/Art.32 
of the Constitution of India has been filed in public interest, 
alleging that the award and execution of public works contracts 
in the State have been marked by arbitrariness, favouritism 
and serious departures from the governing financial and 
procurement norms, including allegations of preferential 
allotment of works to respondent nos. 4 to 6 and to firms or 
individuals stated to be related to them – On that basis, the 
petitioners seek, inter alia, a direction for an independent 
investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and or the 
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):
Held: In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, 
the exercise of public power is always subject to constitutional 
discipline – The State does not hold public resources as a private 
proprietor, but as a trustee on behalf of the people – Whenever 
* Author
2
[2026] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the State undertakes the allocation of public resources, the award 
of public contracts, or the execution of public works, it is bound to 
act in a manner that is transparent, fair, and consistent with the 
guarantee of equality u/Art.14 of the Constitution of India – The 
process through which such decisions are taken must therefore 
be capable of withstanding objective scrutiny and must reflect 
a decision-making framework that is free from arbitrariness, 
favouritism, or undisclosed conflicts of interest – That the petitioners’ 
allegations are not confined to a mere grievance about the outcome 
of a tender – They raise issues that go to the integrity of public 
procurement and the traceability of public expenditure – The 
audit report, the petitioners’ additional affidavit, and the State’s 
replies together disclose repeated resort to non-tender methods, 
repeated absence of recorded reasons for such resort, and 
repeated non-production of vouchers and tender-related records 
in relation to high value public projects – The State’s reliance on 
aggregate percentages does not, by itself, answer the concerns 
arising from specific instances where the procurement trail is 
incomplete or absent – These are matters that require structured 
investigation into the decision making process, the custody and 
availability of records, the reasons for deviations, the identification 
of beneficiaries and related-party links, and the ascertainment 
of whether any cognizable offences or other legal breaches are 
disclosed – This is a fit case where an independent investigation is 
necessary – The nature of allegations, the institutional proximity of 
the persons against whom allegations are made, and the recurring 
deficiencies in the procurement record make it necessary to entrust 
the investigation to an agency which is institutionally independent 
of the State executive – The CBI is the appropriate agency for this 
purpose. [Paras 1, 2 ,29, 41]
Constitution of India – Art.14 – Award of public contracts – 
Legality, Transparency, and Institutional accountability:
Held: Public confidence in governance rests upon the assurance 
that opportunities created by the State are administered through 
institutions that respect equality, integrity, and accountability – 
Where the distribution of public resources is clouded by allegations 
of nepotism, patronage, or opaque decisionmaking, the issue is not 
merely one of administrative irregularity – It raises concerns that 
go to the heart of the constitutional promise that State action shall 
[2026] 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.