Court dismisses review petition of senior minister, affirms no pre-investigation hearing right for proposed accused; State withdraws review after FIR registration, contempt petition closed.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 26, 2026, the Madras High Court (Division Bench) resolved a high-profile writ petition concerning allegations of corruption in recruitment for over 2,500 posts under the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. The case, triggered by material uncovered during an Enforcement Directorate search in an unrelated bank fraud probe, implicated K.N. Nehru, the Minister in charge of the Department, and others in rigging recruitment.
The Enforcement Directorate had forwarded voluminous incriminating material to the Tamil Nadu police's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), but initial inaction led Rajya Sabha MP and practicing advocate I.S. Inbadurai to approach the High Court seeking a mandamus for FIR registration and investigation.
The Court, by its order dated February 20, 2026, directed the DVAC to register a case and conduct a detailed investigation based on the Enforcement Directorate's material. This order was challenged by both the State of Tamil Nadu and Minister K.N. Nehru through separate review petitions. The State contended that the PMLA's Section 66(2) did not compel automatic FIR registration and that a detailed enquiry sanctioned under the Prevention of Corruption Act was already underway. The Minister claimed denial of natural justice due to lack of pre-decisional hearing and raised questions on the validity of the Enforcement Directorate's material following quashing of the predicate offence.
The Division Bench, headed by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, dismissed the State's review application as withdrawn following the Government's assurance that FIR registration had been completed and investigation would proceed. The Court emphasized that the State, being a continuous legal entity, may change its stand if the earlier position was legally untenable.
On the minister's review petition, the Court reaffirmed the principle that a proposed accused has no right to prior hearing or notice before registration of an FIR or commencement of investigation. It held that a direction to register a case is a preliminary step to initiate criminal proceedings and does not determine guilt. The Court found no breach of natural justice in the delay of serving notice to the minister, noting he had ample opportunity to participate once notice was served.
The Bench extensively analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, including Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which regulates Magistrate's powers before directing investigation, and clarified that such procedural safeguards do not extend to writ court proceedings triggered by statutory agency information. The Court also held that the bar on review of criminal court orders under Section 362 Cr.P.C. and Section 403 BNSS does not curtail the High Court's constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which includes power of review under the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021.
The Court further dismissed the contempt petition filed by the writ petitioner for alleged non-compliance of the FIR registration direction, considering the State's subsequent compliance and assurance.
This judgment underscores the autonomy of the High Court's writ jurisdiction in criminal matters, affirms procedural norms regarding FIR registration and investigation, and highlights the balance between individual rights and the public interest in corruption probes involving high-ranking officials.
Bottom Line:
Writ Court can review an order passed in W.P.(Crl.) under Rule 29 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 read with Order 47, Rule 1 CPC; Sections 362 Cr.P.C./403 BNSS do not bar such review in writ jurisdiction. A proposed accused has no right of pre-decisional hearing before a direction to register FIR/investigate is issued, as such direction only sets criminal law in motion and does not determine guilt.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 Constitution of India, Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 Rules 1(4), 25(1), 29(1), Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, Sections 362 Cr.P.C., 403 BNSS, Section 66(2) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 175 BNSS, Section 17A Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 114 CPC
I.S. Inbadurai v. A.T. Durai Kumar, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3002723
