Former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain and five others have been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Branch in a case involving alleged irregularities in ₹1,943 crore Delhi Jal Board sewage treatment plant tenders. The ACB alleges tender conditions and technical specifications were structured in a way that restricted competition and potentially favoured a particular technology supplier. The case also involves former DJB CEO Udit Prakash Rai and other accused. A separate Enforcement Directorate money laundering probe into the alleged irregularities remains pending before the court.
Satyendar Jain Arrest Puts ₹1,943 Crore DJB Tender Case Under Fresh Spotlight
The ACB had arrested Satyendar Jain, Udit Prakash Rai and four others in an alleged DJB tender scam, while the ED's case of money laundering in the matter is yet to be taken cognizance of by a court.
In a new twist to the Satyendar Jain DJB case, Delhi’s Anti-Corruption Branch has arrested six people for allegedly manipulating tenders of sewage treatment plants.
The arrests came as the Enforcement Directorate’s separate money laundering probe into the same alleged tender irregularities is pending before Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts.
The ACB has arrested Aam Aadmi Party leader Satyendar Jain, former Delhi Jal Board CEO IAS Udit Prakash Rai and four others.
The case concerns allegations that the tender conditions and technical specifications were intentionally restrictive, allegedly limiting competition for major sewage treatment plant projects.
ACB Probe Into DJB Tender Irregularities
ACB registered the case against M/s Euroteck Environmental Pvt. Ltd. on May 11, 2024, on the complaint of the Directorate of Vigilance, Government of Delhi.
The complaint named Hyderabad-based M/s EEPL and unknown persons and invoked provisions of cheating, criminal conspiracy, and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Satyendar Jain was the water minister of Delhi and chairman of the Delhi Jal Board at the time, the case details said.
The FIR said four tenders worth around Rs 1,943 crore were awarded for the upgrade and augmentation of 10 existing sewage treatment plants.
The projects covered facilities at Pappankalan, Nilothi, Najafgarh, Keshopur, Coronation Pollar, Narela, Rohini and Kondli, among other locations identified in the investigation.
The ACB said Rajkumar Kurra, managing director of M/s EEPL, manipulated tender conditions through DJB officials, private persons and intermediaries including Nagendra Yadav.
The allegations are that the tender was restricted to IFAS technology with fixed media that could possibly make Euroteck the only technology supplier.
The agency also said a proposed pilot study was never conducted, while restrictive technology and media requirements were included in the tender documents.
According to investigators, the electronic communications they reviewed included discussions between public officials, private parties and intermediaries before the official publication of tender conditions and corrigenda.
The ACB had not filed a chargesheet in the corruption case, indicating that the matter did not reach the trial stage before the recent arrests.
Also Read: Trump Points to India’s Voter ID System in Push for SAVE America Act.
ED Money Laundering Investigation Adds Another Legal Track
By July 4, 2024, the Enforcement Directorate had launched its probe into the alleged DJB corruption case, conducting raids in four cities associated with the case.
The ED said that during the course of these searches, the investigation team seized Rs 41 lakh in cash, documents and digital evidence which allegedly supported the financial probe.
In January 2025, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on the basis of the ACB FIR, taking the alleged corruption offense as the predicate offense.
On July 3, 2025, Satyendar Jain was interrogated at the ED headquarters in connection with the alleged financial transactions related to the DJB tender process.
The ED on December 8, 2025, filed a prosecution complaint against 14 people, including Jain, Udit Prakash Rai, Ajay Gupta and Satish Vashishth.
The Enforcement Directorate had launched its probe into the alleged DJB corruption case by July 4, 2024, conducting raids in four cities associated with the case.
The ED said during those searches investigators seized Rs 41 lakh in cash, as well as documents and digital evidence allegedly supporting the financial investigation.
The ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report on the basis of the ACB FIR, taking the alleged corruption offense as the predicate offense in January 2025.
On July 3, 2025, Satyendar Jain was questioned at the ED headquarters in connection with the alleged financial transactions linked to the DJB tender process.
The ED on December 8, 2025, filed a prosecution complaint against 14 people, including Jain, Udit Prakash Rai, Ajay Gupta and Satish Vashishth.
Rouse Avenue Court to Consider ED Chargesheet
Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at the Rouse Avenue Courts in Delhi is awaiting cognizance of the chargesheet filed by the ED.
At the hearing held on August 7, the court orally asked the prosecutors to seek instructions regarding the ACB investigation before deciding whether or not to take cognizance.
The court said the next hearing was scheduled for September, with the predicate corruption probe still the focus of the proceeding.
The ACB arrests thus add a new dimension to a case already under judicial scrutiny through the parallel money laundering proceedings of the ED.
Both inquiries are related to alleged irregularities in DJB sewage treatment plant tenders, but the ED proceedings also probe alleged financial benefits and proceeds.
The court is yet to decide on the allegations against Satyendar Jain, Udit Prakash Rai and the other accused, and the arrests do not prove guilt.
The further proceedings in the ACB case and the September hearing before Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh are expected to give clarity on the next legal course of the investigations.
For Sprouts News, the case is still significant as developments in the ACB corruption probe may have a direct impact on the court’s view of the ED’s pending prosecution for money laundering.
