'Without Assembly approval': Aadhav Arjuna raises privilege motion against EV Velu

Chennai: A Rs 2,000 crore question over 80 highway projects has now landed in the Tamil Nadu Assembly, with PWD Minister Aadhav Arjuna moving a privilege motion against former PWD and Highways Minister EV Velu.

Arjuna has alleged that Velu sanctioned 80 highway projects without providing funds for them, effectively creating a financial commitment that would have to be met from future budgets without the Assembly having approved the expenditure.

According to Arjuna, the projects were cleared during Velu's tenure as PWD and Highways Minister between 2021 and 2026 under the Comprehensive Road Infrastructure Development Programme (CRIDP), a major state-funded road development scheme.

A government order issued on January 14 this year gave prior administrative approval for the 80 projects, with the combined value of the works estimated at Rs 2,000 crore.

The issue, however, concerns the timing of the financial commitment. Arjuna said no funds had been earmarked for these projects when tenders were floated and work orders were issued for all 80 works during the 2025-26 financial year.

The government subsequently stated that the Rs 2,000 crore expenditure would be adjusted against the overall allocation for CRIDP in the 2026-27 financial year.

Arjuna has questioned this arrangement, pointing out that the 2026-27 interim demands for grants had not yet been voted on by the Assembly when the liabilities were created.

The Appropriation Act, which authorises the government to draw money from the Consolidated Fund for approved expenditure, had also not been passed at that stage.

The PWD Minister has therefore alleged that the former minister's decision resulted in a committed liability of Rs 2,000 crore being placed on a future budgetary provision.

The privilege motion brings the dispute beyond the question of individual road projects and into the larger issue of financial procedure and legislative oversight.

At the centre of Arjuna's allegation is whether administrative approval and the subsequent issuance of work orders could create such a substantial financial obligation before the Assembly had sanctioned the relevant budgetary provision.