The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government not to take further steps in a corruption case against DMK leader KN Nehru until June 23. The order came after the State indicated its intention to withdraw a review petition challenging directions to register a criminal case.
The Madras High Court directed the Tamil Nadu government not to take any further steps in a corruption case registered against DMK leader and former Municipal Administration Minister KN Nehru until June 23, after being informed that the State intends to withdraw a review petition challenging an earlier order that had mandated registration of a criminal case against him.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the interim order while hearing a contempt petition and connected review applications arising out of the Court’s earlier directions concerning allegations of corruption in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department.
The Bench observed that despite a statement previously made before the Court that no coercive action would be taken pending further hearings, a First Information Report (FIR) had already been registered in the matter. Taking note of the circumstances, the Court ordered that no further proceedings should be carried out against any party involved until the next date of hearing.
The Court said,
“In these circumstances and taking into consideration the statement of the then Advocate General made at the Bar, we direct the State authorities not to undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties till the next date of hearing,”
Background of the Corruption Allegations:
The controversy traces its origins to allegations of large-scale corruption in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department during the tenure of the previous DMK government. The allegations primarily relate to irregularities in transfers, postings, and the award of municipal contracts.
The matter gained prominence after the Enforcement Directorate (ED), during its investigations, allegedly uncovered material pointing towards corruption and abuse of official position within the department. Based on information shared by the central agency, questions were raised regarding whether public offices and administrative processes had been manipulated for unlawful gains.
AIADMK Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament IS Inbadurai subsequently pursued legal remedies seeking action based on the material collected by the ED. The issue eventually reached the Madras High Court, which examined whether a criminal investigation was warranted.
On February 20, the High Court delivered a significant order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a criminal case based on the information received from the Enforcement Directorate.
While passing the order, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in initiating action despite the availability of material indicating possible commission of cognisable offences. The Bench observed that the allegations disclosed sufficient grounds for investigation and emphasized that law enforcement agencies could not remain passive when confronted with serious corruption-related claims. The Court’s directions led to the initiation of proceedings against former Minister KN Nehru and others allegedly connected with the matter.
Following the February 20 order, the then DMK-led State government filed review applications seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s directions. The government questioned aspects of the ruling and sought to prevent the implementation of the order directing registration of the criminal case. During the pendency of the review proceedings, the matter continued to be monitored by the Court.
Subsequently, on April 28, the then Advocate General, appearing for the State, informed the Court that no coercive steps would be taken until the next date of hearing. Based on this assurance, the matter was adjourned and scheduled for further consideration on June 23.
On the same day, counsel appearing for contempt petitioner IS Inbadurai also assured the Court that contempt proceedings would not be pursued aggressively until the next hearing date.
The legal dispute took a new turn following the recent Assembly elections, after which a TVK-led government assumed office in Tamil Nadu in May.
When the matter was mentioned before the Court on Friday, counsel for one of the review applicants submitted that despite the earlier assurance recorded by the Court, the State had proceeded with coercive measures and had already registered an FIR in the case.
Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari, appearing for Inbadurai, informed the Bench that the contempt petitioner had adhered to the undertaking given before the Court and had not precipitated contempt proceedings.
The Court also noted that the previous Advocate General had specifically assured the Bench that no coercive action would be taken until the next hearing date.
Appearing for the present government, Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the Court that an FIR had indeed been registered pursuant to the earlier directions. He further stated that the State government had now decided to withdraw one of the review petitions filed against the February 20 judgment.
Narayan explained that he was not aware of the undertaking given by the former Advocate General and submitted that since no formal judicial stay had been granted against further proceedings, authorities proceeded with the registration of the case.
The Court recorded that none of the parties disputed the factual position regarding the registration of the FIR. After considering the submissions, the Bench observed that since the matter was already listed for detailed hearing on June 23, maintaining status quo for a short period would not prejudice the interests of the State.
The Court therefore directed that no further proceedings be undertaken in connection with the case until the next date of hearing. The interim protection effectively pauses any additional investigative or coercive measures arising from the FIR until the Court considers the matter further later this month.
The case will now be taken up on June 23, when the High Court is expected to consider the State government’s proposal to withdraw its review petition as well as the issues arising from the registration of the FIR despite the earlier assurance made before the Court.
Senior Advocate Arvindh Pandian appeared for one of the review applicants, while Public Prosecutor John Sathiyan and Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh represented the respondents in the proceedings.
The matter remains significant given its connection to allegations of corruption within a key State department and the legal questions surrounding compliance with judicial assurances during the pendency of review proceedings.
Case Title: Inbadurai Vs Duraikumar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE