Madras HC dismisses ex-TN Minister KN Nehru’s review plea against order for FIR in corruption case

Chennai: The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a review petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister and senior DMK leader, K.N. Nehru, against its earlier directive to register a corruption case based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate.

The bench of Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the plea seeking reconsideration of its February order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR forthwith.

Nehru and his brothers had challenged the directive on the grounds that they were not heard before it was issued. They argued that the order violated the principles of natural justice.

The state government had also sought a review. However, its position changed after the 2026 Assembly elections brought a new administration to power. Advocate General Vijay Narayan subsequently informed the court that the DVAC had registered an FIR against Nehru and that the government intended to withdraw its review petition.

The bench questioned how the case had been registered when the State had previously undertaken not to initiate action. Narayan submitted that the assurance given by the former Advocate General, acting on the previous government’s instructions, did not bind the new administration.

The court then restrained the State from taking action against Nehru until the matter was heard.

Representing Nehru, senior advocate Siddharth Luthra maintained that his client had the right to be heard before the registration of an FIR was ordered. He argued that a violation of natural justice justified reconsideration, notwithstanding objections to the maintainability of a review in criminal proceedings.

Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the DVAC, countered that the law did not require a proposed accused to be heard before a court directed the registration of an FIR. Citing Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Dave argued that courts, including High Courts, were barred from reviewing decisions in criminal matters.

He also questioned Nehru’s entitlement to seek review of an order passed on another person’s petition.

Narayan contended that Nehru knew about the proceedings but waited until the order was delivered to challenge them. He alleged that the previous government had attempted to delay prosecution and protect a senior minister.

The bench had reserved its decision after hearing the parties and extended the interim protection at that stage. It dismissed Nehru’s review petition on Monday.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]