Author: Fiza Haque a student at J.B. Law College
Introducing
The R.H. Khan scam, also known as the North Cachar Hills (Dima Hasao) scam, represents one of Assam’s most notorious corruption cases. Involving bureaucrats, politicians, and even militant groups, this scam brought to light a deeply rooted nexus between governance and insurgency in India’s northeastern region. This article aims to provide a legal analysis of the scam, and all the proceedings that were followed to tackle this fraud along with the implications for public accountability and financial governance.
Background of the Scam
This fraud occurred between 2006 and 2009, during which funds meant for tribal welfare and infrastructure development were allegedly misappropriated. Over Rs 1000 crore of funds were allocated by the Central Government for development projects under schemes like the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), Social Welfare Department, and others, the region involved was North Cachar Hills (now Dima Hasao district), Assam.
The key accused of this Scam was R.H. Khan, then deputy director of the Assam’s Social Welfare Department.
Mohit Hojai, then Chief Executive Member (CEM) of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council.
Jewel Garlosa and Niranjan Hojai, then leaders of the militant group Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel) [DHD(J)].
According to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), large sums of government funds were siphoned off through fictitious schemes and ghost beneficiaries. These funds were allegedly diverted to militant outfits like DHD(J) to purchase arms and strengthen insurgent activities. A high profile seizure of Rs 13.45 crore in cash from the residence of Khan’s relative in Guwahati, which were hidden in secret compartments , which led to a shocking visual proof of the corruption.
Legal Proceedings
The CBI launched a probe in 2009 following massive amount of media and political outcry. Multiple FIRs were registered, and chargesheet were filed under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal conspiracy, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.
• Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were invoked.
• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was also applied due to the militant funding angle.
The prosecution alleged that R.H. Khan played a central role in facilitating the flow of public money into militant hands, thus compromising national security and breaching public trust.
The Gauhati High Court, in August 2023, acquitted R.H. Khan and other key accused, citing “deficiencies in investigation” and “insufficient evidence” to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This verdict, while legally tenable, sparked public disappointment. Critics argue that poor evidence collection and procedural lapses allowed high-profile accused individuals to walk free despite compelling circumstantial evidence. It raised questions about the judicial justice system, and has been widely criticised by the public for its unfair decision.
Legal and Policy Implications
1. Weak Investigative Mechanisms: The case exposes limitations in India’s investigative agencies, particularly when dealing with complex corruption-militancy nexuses. It’s also highlights the need of strong inter-agency coordination between CBI, NIA, and state vigilance bodies.
2. Judicial Caution: The court’s strict adherence to evidentiary standards underscores the importance of due process, but also highlights the need for prosecutorial reforms.
3. Accountability of Autonomous Councils: The scam revealed the vulnerabilities of Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, emphasizing the need for financial audits and checks.
Abstract
The R.H. Khan scam, also known as the North Cachar Hills or Dima Hasao scam, is one of Assam’s most significant corruption cases, involving the misappropriation of over ₹1,000 crore in government development funds between 2006 and 2009. Key accused included senior bureaucrats, members of the autonomous district council, and leaders of the insurgent group DHD (Jewel). The diverted funds, originally intended for welfare and infrastructure development, were allegedly funneled to militant groups for the procurement of arms, thereby exposing a dangerous nexus between governance and insurgency. Investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the case led to high-profile arrests and the recovery of substantial illicit cash. However, in 2023, the Gauhati High Court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence and investigative lapses. This scam underscores the need for robust financial oversight, transparency in governance, and reform in prosecutorial mechanisms to safeguard public funds, especially in politically sensitive and conflict-prone regions.
Case Laws
1.State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 659
Key Principle: Defined the ingredients of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
Relevance: Helps assess the evidentiary threshold required to establish conspiracy in corruption cases like the R.H. Khan scam.
2. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, (2014) 2 SCC 532 (Coal Block Allocation Scam Case)
Key Takeaway: The Supreme Court held that arbitrary and non-transparent allocation of natural resources is violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Relevance: Reinforces the need for transparency in fund allocation, similar to how North Cachar Hills funds were misused.
3. CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788
Key Principle: Clarified who qualifies as a “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even when working in private institutions handling public funds.
Relevance: Useful in determining the liability of council members and others in quasi-government roles in the R.H. Khan case.
4. Niranjan Hojai v. State of Assam (Unreported, Gauhati High Court Bail Orders, 2014)
Key Takeaway: Bail was granted to Niranjan Hojai, citing cooperation and time served.
Relevance: Important procedural development in the broader legal saga surrounding the scam.
5. State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, (2011) 3 SCC 109
Key Principle: Emphasized the court’s discretion in evaluating evidence in corruption cases.
Relevance: Often cited when courts deal with incomplete or circumstantial evidence, as seen in the R.H. Khan case.
Conclusion
The R.H. Khan scam stands as a stark reminder of how public funds intended for the welfare of marginalized communities can be diverted through deep-rooted corruption and administrative negligence. What began as a development initiative in Assam’s Dima Hasao district unraveled into a complex nexus of bureaucrats, political leaders, and insurgents, exposing the vulnerabilities of governance in conflict-prone regions. While the initial investigation and high-profile arrests suggested a strong case, the eventual acquittal of the accused due to procedural lapses and lack of concrete evidence underscores the critical importance of effective investigation, diligent prosecution, and institutional accountability. The case highlights systemic failures—from the allocation and monitoring of funds to the enforcement of anti-corruption laws.
FAQ
1.Who were the main accused in the scam?
The key accused included:
R.H. Khan: Then Deputy Director of the Assam Social Welfare Department.
Mohit Hojai: Then Chief Executive Member of the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council.
Jewel Garlosa and Niranjan Hojai: Leaders of the militant group Dima Halam Daogah (Jewel faction).
They were accused of diverting government funds to the militant outfit DHD(J) for procuring arms and ammunition. (India Blooms)
2. How were the funds misused?
Investigations revealed that funds allocated for development activities were siphoned off through fake beneficiaries and ghost projects. A significant portion of this money was allegedly funneled to the militant group DHD(J) to finance their operations. (Times of India)
3. Was any money recovered during the investigation?
Yes, in June 2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recovered ₹13.45 crore in cash from the residence of R.H. Khan’s brother-in-law in Guwahati. The money was concealed in secret compartments within the garage. (The Assam Tribune)
