BENGALURU: The Madras High Court on Friday directed Tamil Nadu’s Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to “immediately register a criminal case” against DMK minister KN Nehru in an alleged cash-for-jobs scam linked to over $630 Crores.
A division bench of Chief Justice M M Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan said the material shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) revealed the commission of a cognizable offense and left no scope for delay. The court rejected the state’s contention that the commission could wait for the outcome of a “detailed investigation” before registering a First Information Report (FIR).
“When corruption is said to have taken place and it relates to several hundred million rupees, we find that the material is sufficient to detect the commission of a cognizable offense for the purposes of registering the case,” the apex court said.
It noted that the ED had shared “huge details” under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on October 27, 2025, and said the state should have acted on this information without hesitation.
The Supreme Court also said that even a preliminary investigation under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act must be concluded within 14 days, but the Tamil Nadu government failed to adhere to the deadline imposed by the law.
“The state is only finding ways and means to delay the registration of the case,” the court said, adding that the current case does not involve a “bare complaint” submitted to the Domestic Violence Commission. Instead, there was “detailed information accompanied by evidence running into hundreds of pages” provided by the emergency department, the court said.
The order came on the basis of two writ petitions seeking an FIR and investigation against Nehru. While one of the petitions was filed by AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP IS Inbadurai, the other petition was filed by a common citizen, K Athinarayan from Madurai.
“The state should have registered a case on the basis of the information provided by the Enforcement Directorate… and could have then conducted a detailed investigation to uncover the truth and bring the culprits to justice,” the Supreme Court said. “This is not a case in which the authorities received an explicit complaint which necessitated a state investigation. In the case at hand, it is detailed information provided by the Public Security Directorate with a huge body of prima facie evidence revealing the commission of a recognizable crime.”
The judges said they felt “prima facie” that an “independent specialist agency” should ideally be conducting the investigation, and they chose not to refer the matter because the state had already entrusted the case to the Domestic Violence Commission.
Since DVAC initiated a preliminary process, the Supreme Court directed the agency to “immediately register the case” and conduct a “detailed and expeditious investigation”.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that it had issued the present order only on the basis of Enppadurai’s confession, as it had realized during the hearings that Athinarayanan had a “criminal history”.
During the earlier hearings, senior advocate NR Elango, who represented the DVAC, told the court that the agency treated the ED call as preliminary information and initiated a “detailed investigation” under the Vigilance Manual.
Elango said the DVAC would also write to the CEO for any additional materials. He had said that DVAC could not register an FIR until it had concluded this investigation.
However, in its order, the Supreme Court disagreed with DVAC’s submissions. The judges said that the ED had not only sent the allegations but also provided documentary evidence that prima facie proved it was a cognizable offence.
The DG’s special prosecutor, N Ramesh, had told the court on February 6 this year that the agency had shared 232 pages of material that clearly showed irregularities in transfers and appointments in the municipal administration and water supply department.
However, Solicitor General BS Raman, who represented the TN government, questioned the source of the material. He had told the court that the ED collected documents during search and seizure operations in April 2025 in connection with a bank fraud case.
Another division bench of the Supreme Court had quashed the enforcement case FIR in that case on July 24, 2025. Therefore, Raman said, the CEO 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 Supreme Court.
However, the court said it chose to focus on “the nature of the information” rather than arguing about its source. “The law requires that a case be registered as soon as reliable material reveals a recognizable crime,” she said.
In January this year, the ED wrote to the DVAC, alleging Rs 366 crore worth of money laundering and corruption in the “transfer and postings” of officials and engineers in the municipal administration and water supply department. The agency’s Chennai zonal office has written to the state chief secretary and DVAC seeking registration of an FIR against Nehru and others. It had previously sent letters in October and December 2025 alleging “widespread” corruption in tenders and recruitment and linking the minister to the charges.
