Madras HC directs registration of criminal case against DMK minister KN Nehru

THe Madras heights margaret court on fri directed the Tamil Nadu board of directors of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to “ straightaway register a criminal case” against Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) minister KN Nehru in an alleged ₹630 crore cash-for-jobs case.A bench of Chief Justice MM Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan cited the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s material and added that it disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence and left no room for delay. It rejected the state’s stand that the DVAC could wait for the outcome of a detailed inquiry before registering a First Information Report (FIR).“When corruption is stated to have happened involving several hundred crores of rupees, we find that the material is sufficient enough disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence for the purposes of registering a case,” the court said.It noted that the ED shared “voluminous details” under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on October 27, 2025, and said the state should have acted on that information without hesitation.The court said that even a preliminary inquiry under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita must conclude within 14 days, but the Tamil Nadu government had failed to meet the deadline.“The state is only finding ways and means to delay registering a case,” the court said. It added that the present case was not one involving a “bare complaint” made to the DVAC. The court referred to ED’s “detailed information accompanied by evidence running into hundreds of pages.”The court said the state should have registered a case based on the ED’s information. “And they could have thereafter concluded a detailed investigation to unravel the truth and bring the culprits to book,” the court said. “It is not a case where the authorities have received a bare complaint which has necessitated the state to conduct an inquiry. In the case in hand, it is a detailed information provided by the ED with a voluminous set of evidence prima facie disclosing the commission of a cognisable offence.”The court said it felt “prima facie” that an “independent specialised agency” should ideally conduct the probe, but it was choosing not to transfer the matter since the state had entrusted the issue to the DVAC.Since the DVAC had begun a preliminary exercise, the court directed the agency to “forthwith register a case” and conduct a detailed and expeditious investigation.The court was hearing Opposition All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam lawmaker IS Inbadurai and one K Athinarayanan’s writ petitions seeking a case and a probe against Nehru.It clarified that it was passing the order on Inbadurai’s plea since it realised that Athinarayanan had “criminal antecedents.”During the previous hearings, senior counsel NR Elango, who appeared for the DVAC, told the court that the agency treated ED’s communication as first information and commenced a “detailed inquiry”. Elango said the DVAC would also write to the ED seeking any additional material. He added that the DVAC could not register a case until it completed this inquiry.The court disagreed with the DVAC’s submissions. It said that the ED had not merely forwarded allegations but provided documentary evidence that prima facie established a cognisable offence.N Ramesh, who appeared for the ED, told the court on February 6 that the agency shared 232 pages of material that clearly demonstrated wrongdoing in transfers and appointments in the municipal administration and water supply department.Advocate general PS Raman, who appeared for the state government, questioned the material. He told the court that ED collected the documents during search and seizure operations in April 2025 in connection with a bank fraud case.Another division bench of the court quashed the case on July 24, 2025. Raman argued the ED should have returned the seized materials. Instead, the central agency retained copies and shared them with the state police three months later, Raman told the court.The court said it was choosing to focus on the “nature of the information” rather than the controversy over its source. It said the “law required registration of a case once credible material disclosed a cognisable offence.”In January, ED wrote to the state chief secretary and the DVAC seeking registration of an FIR against Nehru and others. It sent letters in October and December 2025 alleging “widespread” corruption in tenders and recruitments allegedly involving Nehru.