The direction to register a corruption case against DMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Minister K N Nehru stays: the Madras High Court has dismissed Nehru’s review plea. The allegations are untested and the court has not ruled on their merits.
Chennai: Declining to recall its own order, the Madras High Court on Monday, October 26, 2026, dismissed the review petition filed by former Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Minister K N Nehru against the direction to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a criminal case against him on the basis of material shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) [K N Nehru v. I S Inbadurai and Others].
A Division Bench heard Rev. Appl. (WP) Crl. No. 3 of 2026 and reserved its orders on August 10, 2026, after hearing Nehru, the DVAC and the State. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for Nehru, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave for the DVAC, and Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the State.
What the dismissal settles
With the review petition dismissed, the February 20 direction to the DVAC stands. The dismissal concerns only whether that order should be recalled. It is not a finding on the allegations against Nehru, which remain subject to investigation and, if a charge sheet is filed, to trial.
The February 20 order
A Division Bench had directed the DVAC on February 20, 2026 to register a criminal case and carry out a detailed, time-bound investigation, acting on source information that the ED shared with the State on October 27, 2025 under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It held that the material disclosed a cognisable offence and criticised the State for not acting earlier. The petitions before it had sought a direction to register an FIR.
As recorded in that order, the ED’s material said that digital evidence recovered during searches allegedly showed bribes collected for favourable transfers and postings of engineers and other officials in the MAWS Department, and kickbacks allegedly collected in the award of municipal contracts. These are allegations. They are untested, no court has found them proved, and Nehru is presumed innocent.
Review sought, and resisted
Nehru’s case on review was that he and his brothers were not heard before the February order was made. Senior Advocate Luthra argued that the order offended the principles of natural justice, so that a review should be allowed even though a review of an order in a criminal writ is contested as not maintainable.
The DVAC argued that no law requires a proposed accused to be heard before an FIR is ordered, that the original petition was filed by another person and only that petitioner could seek review, and that under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a High Court cannot review a criminal matter. The State, after the change of government, had decided to withdraw its own review petition.
The Advocate General told the Court that the DVAC had already registered an FIR, and argued that an undertaking given by the previous Advocate General did not bind the new government. He also alleged that the previous government had tried to delay the prosecution; that is the State’s contention and has not been adjudicated.
Case Title: K N Nehru v. I S Inbadurai and Others [Rev. Appl. (WP) Crl. No. 3 of 2026]
Court: Madras High Court
Date of Order: October 26, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for K N Nehru; Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave for the DVAC; Advocate General Vijay Narayan for the State (as at the hearing reserved on August 10, 2026)