I.S.Inbadurai vs A.T.Durai Kumar, IPS
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.08.2026
DELIVERED ON : 26.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026; Rev.Aplwp. Crl. Nos.2 and 3 of 2026;
and WPMP.Crl. Nos.579, 653, 335 and 304 of 2026
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026:
I.S.Inbadurai
S/o.Inbanayagam,
Member of Parliment, Rajya Sabha
Tamil Nadu, Office at No.366,
2nd Floor, Old Shaw Wallace
Building, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai.
Petitioner(s)
Vs
A.T.Durai Kumar, IPS
The In-Charge Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
(DVAC) No.293, MKN Road, Ramapuram,
Collectors Nagar, Alandur,
Chennai - 600 016.
Contemnor(s)
______________
Page 1 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
R ev .A plwp Crl.No.2 of 2026:
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. I.S.Inbadurai
S/o.Inbanayagam,
Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha
Tamil Nadu, Office at No.366,
2nd Floor, Old Shaw Wallace Building,
Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai.
2. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
(DVAC), No.293, MKN Road, Ramapuram,
Collectors Nagar, Alandur, Chennai-600016.
3. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai - 600 004.
4. The Director of Enforcement,
Rep. By Assistant Director
rd
Shastri Bhavan, 3 Floor, 3 Block
B-Wing, No.26, Haddows Road
Chennai – 600 006.
5. K.N.Nehru
Hon’ble Minister of Municipal Administration
and Water Supply Department
Residing at No.64/1, Luz Church Road
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 2 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
R ev .A plwp Crl. No. 3 of 2026:
K.N.Nehru
Honble Minister for MAWS Department,
Residing at No.64/1, Luz Chruch Road,
Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. I.S.Inbadurai
S/o.Inbanayagam,
Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha,
Office at N.366, 2nd Floor,
Old Shaw Wallace Building,
Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai.
2. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary
Home Department, Secretariat
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and
Anti-Corruption (DVAC), No.293,
MKN Road, Ramapuram, Alandur,
Chennai - 600 016.
4. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai - 600004.
5. The Director of Enforcement,
Rep. by Assistant Director,
Shastri Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 3 Block,
B Wing, No.26, Haddows Road,
Chennai - 600 006.
Respondent(s)
______________
Page 3 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
PRAYER in Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 : Petition filed under Section 11 of
the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for the willful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court made in W.P.(Crl) No.74
of 2026 dated 20.02.2026.
PRAYER in REV.APLWP Crl. No. 2 of 2026: Application filed under Order
XLVII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code
and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review and set aside the
judgment and order dated 20.02.2026 passed in W.P.(Crl).No.74 of
2026, grant an ad-interim stay of the direction to register an FIR,
pending disposal of this review application and pass such other and
further orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in REV.APLWP Crl. No. 3 of 2026: Application filed under
Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure
Code and Article 226 of the Constitution of India to allow the Review
Petition against the final order and judgment dated 20.02.2026 passed
in in W.P.(Crl) No.74 of 2026 and pass such other and further order or
orders as this Court may deem fit and proper.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Tamilselvan
For Mr.N.Inbanathan
in Cont.P.No.872 of 2026
Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.J.Lenin, Spl. Govt. Pleader and
Mr.Akash Srinanda, Govt. Advocate
in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.2 of 2026
______________
Page 4 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
Mr.Siddarth Luthra, Senior Counsel and
Mr.P.H.Arvindh Pandian, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Abishek Jenasenan
in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.3 of 2026
For Respondent(s):Mr.John Sathiyan, Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Mr.Arun Anbumani
for respondent in
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026
R3 in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.2 of 2026 and
R4 in Rev.Aplwp. Crl.No.3 of 2026
Mr.Siddhartha Dave
Senior Counsel
for Mr.Arun Anbumani
Additional Public Prosecutor
for R2 in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.2 of 2026 and
R3 in Rev.Aplwp. Crl.No.3 of 2026
Mr.V.Logesh
Special Public Prosecutor
for R4 in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.2 of 2026 and
for R5 in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.3 of 2026
Mr.S.Tamilselvan
for Mr. N.Inbanathan
for R1 in both Review Applications
Mr.Vijay Narayan
Advocate General assisted by
Mr.J.Lenin, Spl. Govt. Pleader and
Mr.Akash Srinanda, Govt. Advocate
for R2 in Rev.Aplwp Crl.No.3 of 2026
______________
Page 5 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
COMMON ORDER
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
These three matters stem out of the same writ petition, being
W.P.(Crl) No.74 of 2026, and the order we passed in it on
20.02.2026.
2. Since the facts overlap, we heard all these matters together
and dispose of the same by this common judgment.
3. Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 is a contempt petition filed by the
original writ petitioner, I.S.Inbadurai, complaining that the
directions issued in the order dated 20.02.2026 passed in W.P. (Crl)
No.74 of 2026 have been ignored.
4. Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 is a review filed by the State of Tamil
Nadu against the same order. Rev.A.No.3 of 2026 is a review filed
by K.N.Nehru, who was the fifth respondent in the writ petition.
______________
Page 6 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
5. Before delving in, this court feels expedient to narrate a
quick recap of how it all started. The Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department had invited applications for 2,538 posts,
and appointments were made around July 2025. While investigating
an unrelated bank fraud case, the Enforcement Directorate
searched the residence of one K.N.Ravichandran, who happens to
be the brother of K.N.Nehru, the Minister in charge of that very
department. In the course of that search, the Enforcement
Directorate claimed that it came across material, such as WhatsApp
chats, hall tickets, screenshots, and even a curious method of using
a Rs.10/- currency note to mark and track payments, suggesting
the recruitment itself had been rigged. On 27.10.2025, the
Enforcement Directorate forwarded this material, running to about
232 pages, to the Director General of Police under Section 66(2) of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [for brevity, “ the PMLA ”],
for whatever action the State thought fit.
6. As no action was initiated based on the said material,
Inbadurai, a Member of the Rajya Sabha and a practising advocate,
sent a representation dated 13.12.2025 to the Director, DVAC,
______________
Page 7 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
asking that an FIR be registered against the Minister and the others
named in the material supplied by the Enforcement Directorate. The
said representation too did not educe any response, which
necessitated him to approach this Court in W.P.(Crl) No.74 of 2026,
asking for a mandamus directing registration of a case and a fair
investigation.
7. This Court, by order dated 20.02.2026, directed the DVAC
to register a case and carry out a detailed investigation. This court
gave reasons at length in that order and see no necessity to repeat
them here, beyond recalling the operative part of it, which reads
thus:
"60. In view of the deliberations, though we are
prima facie satisfied that the investigation could be
entrusted to an independent specialized agency,
considering the fact that the Vigilance Department
has been entrusted with the case by the State, we
deem it appropriate that the second respondent/
Vigilance Department should be directed to forthwith
register a case and conduct a detailed investigation
and take suitable further action based on the
investigation report.
______________
Page 8 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
61. Accordingly, the second respondent/Vigilance
Department is directed to forthwith register a case
on the information shared by the Enforcement
Directorate on 27.10.2025 under Section 66(2) of
the Act and conduct a detailed expeditious
investigation into the matter and proceed further in
accordance to law."
8. In the said order, this Court rejected the objection that the
writ petition was not maintainable because Inbadurai was not
personally the source of the allegations. The Court noted that the
complaint was really against high officials connected to the Minister,
that the material had come from a statutory investigating agency
rather than from a bald allegation, and that the Court would rather
examine the matter on its own merits, than shut it out on a
technicality.
9. Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 was filed by Inbadurai against the
second respondent in the writ petition. It is pleaded that after the
order dated 20.02.2026, his earlier representation was formally
received and acknowledged by the respondent on 25.02.2026, yet
no FIR followed, no reply came even to a legal notice dated
______________
Page 9 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
25.02.2026, and every day of delay increases the risk of evidence
being tampered with or destroyed. It is submitted that the inaction
on the part of the respondent is willful disobedience of the order
and seeks to punish the respondent for contempt.
10.1. Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 was filed by the State of Tamil Nadu
under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC and Article 226
of the Constitution, inter alia , on the following grounds:
(a) that Section 66(2) of the PMLA only allows one
authority to share information with another, it does
not, by itself, compel the registration of a criminal
case without the State applying its own mind;
(b) that a writ court does not ordinarily direct
registration of an FIR and the proper remedy lies
before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section
175(3) of the BNSS, the successor to the old Section
156(3) Cr.P.C.;
(c) that Inbadurai was not really a complainant at
all;
______________
Page 10 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
(d) that a detailed enquiry against the persons
named had already been registered on 12.12.2025,
with the necessary prior approval under Section 17-A
of the Prevention of Corruption Act [for brevity, “ the
PC Act ”], and that this enquiry was very much alive
when this Court passed the order, which is sought to
be reviewed.
10.2. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court
1
in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P . , which treats corruption
cases as one of the categories where a preliminary enquiry may
come before an FIR, and on a recent judgment of the Supreme
2
Court in XXX v. State of Kerala , which held that Section 175(4) of
the BNSS requires the competent authority to first obtain a report
from the superior officer of the public servant and hear the public
servant's version before directing an investigation against him.
11.1. K.N.Nehru, who had been named as the fifth respondent
in the writ petition, filed Rev.A.No.3 of 2026 questioning the order
1 (2014) 2 SCC 1
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 114
______________
Page 11 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
passed by the Division Bench on two grounds, viz., one about not
being given a hearing, and the other about the correctness of
direction to register an FIR.
11.2. On the question of hearing, it is pleaded that, on
28.01.2026, while the writ petition was being heard, the Court had
specifically left open the question of whether notice should go to the
review applicant herein, saying that the said issue " shall be
considered at appropriate stage ". The said question was never
actually decided and instead, a notice was issued to him only on
02.02.2026 and reached him on 04.02.2026 at 1.47 p.m., the very
day the case was reserved for orders. It is pleaded that he was
given no real chance to answer the adverse material recorded
against him and his relatives in the order sought to be reviewed.
11.3. On the merits, the grounds raised are that the predicate
offence and the ECIR against Ravichandran had been quashed and
the seized material returned to him; once that happened, the
Enforcement Directorate had no further " information or material in
its possession " of the kind Section 66(2) of the PMLA speaks of, and
______________
Page 12 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
had become functus officio . Therefore, the communication of
27.10.2025 could not validly trigger anything. Even if it could,
corruption cases are recognised in Lalita Kumari (supra) as a
category where a preliminary enquiry may precede an FIR, and
such an enquiry, which is a detailed one, sanctioned under Section
17-A of the PC Act and conducted under the Vigilance Manual, was
already in progress. The newly settled position under Section
175(4) of the BNSS required that the review applicant be heard
before any investigation could be directed against him. A writ of
mandamus, in any event, is not the ordinary remedy for compelling
registration of an FIR, which authority lies before the jurisdictional
Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. It is asserted that
Inbadurai, being a political rival with no personal stake in the
matter, had no standing to set the criminal law in motion against
him.
11.4. It is pleaded that of the three first information reports
said to have been registered pursuant to the material forwarded by
the Enforcement Directorate, only two had in fact been made
______________
Page 13 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
available to the review applicant, the third having been withheld
and this fact, by itself, calls for closer scrutiny of the entire exercise.
11.5. Learned Senior Counsel drew support from a long line of
3
decisions, including Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. , Sudhir Bhaskarrao
4
Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage , Divine Retreat Centre v. State
5 6
of Kerala , M.Subramaniam v. S. Janaki , Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
7 8
v. Union of India , Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary , and the decision
9
of this Court in D.Kumar v. Raichand Daga , besides Lalita Kumari
(supra) and the XXX (supra) on Section 175(4) of the BNSS, as also
10
Johra v. State of Haryana .
11.6. In addition, reference was made to Rules 20, 24, 25 and
29, and Rules 3(7) and 17(3), of the Madras High Court Writ Rules,
2021 in support of the submission that these Rules framed by this
Court under Article 225 of the Constitution and Clause 37 of the
Letters Patent to regulate proceedings under Article 226, expressly
3 (2008) 2 SCC 409
4 (2016) 6 SCC 277
5 (2008) 3 SCC 542
6 (2020) 16 SCC 728
7 (2023) 12 SCC 1
8 AIR 1993 SC 892
9 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 12156
10 (2019) 2 SCC 324
______________
Page 14 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
provide for review of an order in a writ petition, without excluding a
petition of a criminal nature merely because Rule 3(7) requires such
a petition to be titled "W.P.(Crl.)"; that Rule 25(1) of the Rules
contemplates the Court hearing any person " who desires to be
heard in support or opposition to the petition ... notwithstanding
that he has not been served with notice "; that Rule 20 of the Rules
sets out the modes by which notice is to be served and requires
proof of service where a mode other than through the Registry is
used; that Rule 24 of the Rules fixes the time for filing a counter-
affidavit once notice issues; and that Rule 17(3) of the Rules, which
sends a W.P.(Crl.) to the Judge hearing petitions under Section 482
Cr.P.C. or as the Chief Justice may direct, shows that such a petition
remains, for every other purpose, a writ petition governed by these
Rules and nothing else.
11.7. An application, W.P.M.P.(Crl) No.579 of 2026, was
moved to amend the prayer in the review so as to seek " review
and/or recall " of our order.
______________
Page 15 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
11.8. In the written arguments, the review applicant asserts
that that although every ground in the memorandum remains on
record, what was actually argued at the hearing was confined to
one point that he was denied a hearing before an order prejudicial
to him was passed, and that this alone justifies recalling it.
12. When these matters were taken up by us, learned
Advocate General, on instructions, made a clear statement that the
Government does not wish to press Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 and that
they have already registered an FIR and no precipitative action was
taken, based on the direction issued by this court.
13. The aforesaid submission made by learned Advocate
General was resisted by Mr.Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel,
by submitting that the State, having taken a considered stand in
Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 to the effect that Section 66(2) of the PMLA
does not compel registration of an FIR; that the remedy lies under
Section 175(3) of the BNSS; and that a detailed enquiry sanctioned
under Section 17-A of the PC Act was already in progress, could
______________
Page 16 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
not, upon a mere change of the Government in office, abandon that
stand. Describing this as a case of the State seeking to approbate
and reprobate, learned Senior Counsel relied on A.P.Dairy
11
Development Corpn. Federation v. B. Narasimha Reddy and State
12
of T.N. v. K.Shyam Sunder , for the position that the State, being a
continuing body within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution, must ordinarily carry forward the stand taken by a
previous Government, and that a change of stand occasioned only
by a change in the ruling party is impermissible, as no political
agenda should be allowed to undermine the rule of law.
14. We are unable to accept this submission. The very
decisions relied upon recognise the exception that applies here. At
this juncture, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraph of
the decision in A.P.Dairy Development Corpn. Federation (supra)
hereunder:
“40. In the matter of the Government of a State, the
succeeding Government is duty-bound to continue
and carry on the unfinished job of the previous
Government, for the reason that the action is that of
11 (2011) 9 SCC 286
12 (2011) 8 SCC 737
______________
Page 17 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
the “State”, within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution, which continues to subsist and
therefore, it is not required that the new Government
can plead contrary to the State action taken by the
previous Government in respect of a particular
subject. The State, being a continuing body can
be stopped from changing its stand in a given
case, but where after holding enquiry it came
to the conclusion that action was not in
conformity with law, the doctrine of estoppel
would not apply. Thus, unless the act done by the
previous Government is found to be contrary to the
statutory provisions, unreasonable or against policy,
the State should not change its stand merely
because the other political party has come into
power. “ Political agenda of an individual or a
political party should not be subversive of rule
of law. ” The Government has to rise above the
nexus of vested interest and nepotism, etc. as
the principles of governance have to be tested
on the touchstone of justice, equity and fair
play. The decision must be taken in good faith
and must be legitimate. (Vide Onkar Lal
Bajaj v. Union of India [(2003) 2 SCC 673], State of
Karnataka v. All India Manufacturers
______________
Page 18 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
Organisation [(2006) 4 SCC 683] and State of
T.N. v. K. Shyam Sunder [(2011) 8 SCC 737].)”
[ emphasis supplied ]
15. The decisions in A.P.Dairy Development Corpn. Federation
(supra) and K.Shyam Sunder (supra) make it clear that the State
may depart from an earlier position where persisting with it would
mean continuing an action not in conformity with law, and that the
doctrine of estoppel does not bind the State to an untenable stand
merely because a different Government took it. What these
decisions caution against is a change of position for its own sake, to
serve a political interest at the expense of legality and not the
surrender of a legally doubtful objection to compliance with an
order of this Court.
16. The withdrawal of Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 on the ground that
case has already been registered in compliance with the direction of
this Court and the authorities would investigate the alleged offence,
does not constitute a subversion of the rule of law. On the contrary,
continuing to resist registration after the Government itself has
______________
Page 19 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
chosen not to press the objection would undermine the rule of law
far more severely than relinquishing the challenge.
17. We would add that this is, in any event, not a question
that turns on a comparison of the previous and the present
Government's positions on adversarial facts. It is simply a question
of whether the applicant, in its own review application, wishes to
carry that review forward. A litigant, including the State, remains
free to withdraw a proceeding it has itself instituted. The doctrine
invoked by Mr.Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, restrains a
party from taking inconsistent positions against another party to
secure an advantage, not from abandoning an objection it no longer
considers sustainable.
18. We may also note, since Kedar Nath Yadav v. State of
13
W.B. was cited to us as well, that the Supreme Court there held
clearly that a stand taken by the State can be departed from, where
there is material to show that the earlier action suffered from
illegality or was otherwise unsustainable, and that this Court, in
13 (2017) 11 SCC 601
______________
Page 20 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
examining such questions, is not confined to the affidavits filed by
the parties. Judged by that standard too, we see nothing in the
record to suggest that the State's earlier resistance to our order
rested on ground so solid that its abandonment calls for any further
scrutiny by us.
19. In our view, therefore, nothing turns, for the purposes of
Rev.A.No.2 of 2026, on the change of Government, and the
submission that the State is seeking impermissibly to approbate
and reprobate does not survive.
20. Once learned Advocate General submits, on instructions,
that the Government no longer wishes to pursue the review and will
instead comply with our order, nothing further remains to be
decided on that application. We record that statement and permit
Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 to be withdrawn.
21. The same assurance was extended to the contempt
petition. Learned State Public Prosecutor submitted that the case
has already been registered and the authorities would take the
______________
Page 21 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
investigation forward without further delay, in terms of the
directions already issued. Learned counsel for contempt petitioner,
while pointing out the hardship the delay had already caused, did
not press for any punitive order once this assurance was placed on
record, and left the matter to the court.
22. Apropos of Rev.A.No.3 of 2026, the submission of
Mr.Siddarth Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the DVAC,
was, in substance, fourfold:
(i) A person named as a proposed accused has, on a
long and consistent line of authority, no right to
notice or a hearing before an order directing
registration of an FIR. He added that neither a
Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., now
Section 175(3) BNSS, nor a writ court acting under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hears the
person sought to be investigated, and the only
exception recognised is where some vested right has
already accrued.
______________
Page 22 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
(ii) The order of this Court having finally decided the
writ petition and directed registration of a case, with
consequences that are criminal and not civil, no
review or recall lies at all. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC,
framed for civil proceedings, has no place in a
criminal matter, and Section 362 Cr.P.C./Section 403
BNSS specifically bars a criminal court from altering
or reviewing its own judgment, a bar that Section
482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to bypass.
(iii) The limited category of case in which recall has
been permitted is confined to orders dismissed in
limine, for non-prosecution, absence of locus, or the
like, where nothing has been decided on merits;
whereas the order passed by this Court was purely
on merits and a detailed one.
(iv) Several of the decisions relied upon by the
review applicant, including Vikram Bakshi v.
14
R.P.Khosla and another , in fact support the
proposition that no criminal court can review its own
14 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1783
______________
Page 23 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
judgment. Learned Senior Counsel added that the
review applicant, having been named in the FIR,
remains free to challenge it in the ordinary course,
and that to hold otherwise would mean no FIR could
ever be registered against anyone without first
hearing every person likely to be named in it.
23. Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General, submitted
that:
(i) This Court, in leaving open the question of
issuance of notice to the fifth respondent in the writ
petition/review applicant, was conscious throughout
that a proposed accused has no right to be heard
before such a direction is made, and did not, for that
reason, consider it necessary to issue notice before
reserving orders. He also submitted that the review
petitioner, being the senior-most Minister in the then
Government and as subject matter was in continuous
public and press attention, cannot credibly claim to
have been unaware of the proceedings;
______________
Page 24 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
(ii) Having received notice on 04.02.2026, while
orders pronounced only on 20.02.2026, the review
applicant had sixteen days and made no attempt to
bring anything on record or to seek a reopening of
the hearing.
(iii) A person who, with knowledge of a pending
proceeding, chooses to wait and see how it turns out
before complaining, cannot later be heard to plead
denial of natural justice.
24. Mr.Siddarth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, in reply,
submitted that a person named as a respondent in a writ petition,
against whom adverse observations come to be recorded, cannot be
left out of the hearing, and that failure alone is enough to require
recall of our order.
25. Before we go further, we must deal with the more
fundamental objection raised by Mr.Siddarth Dave and the learned
Advocate General that no review lies at all against an order passed
in a writ petition of this description, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC having
______________
Page 25 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
no application to a proceeding that is, in substance, criminal, and
Section 362 Cr.P.C./Section 403 BNSS specifically barring any
alteration of such an order.
26. We are unable to accept the aforesaid submission. The
order under review was not passed by a criminal court trying a
criminal case; it was passed by this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, upon a
petition that carries the title "W.P.(Crl.)" only because Rule 3(7) of
the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 requires a petition whose
cause of action relates to criminal proceedings to be so titled. Rule
1(4) of these Rules makes them applicable to every petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, drawing no distinction
between one of a civil and one of a criminal complexion. Rule 29(1)
of the Rules provides, in terms, that this Court may review its
orders on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; and
Rule 25(1) of the Rules contemplates this Court hearing any person
who desires to be heard in support of or in opposition to a petition,
even one not served with notice. These Rules were framed by this
Court itself, under Article 225 of the Constitution and Clause 37 of
______________
Page 26 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
the Letters Patent, precisely to regulate proceedings of this kind,
and nowhere do they exclude a W.P.(Crl.) from the scope of Rule
29. Section 362 Cr.P.C. and Section 403 BNSS bar a criminal court,
viz., a Court exercising jurisdiction under that Cr.P.C, from reviewing
or altering its own judgment; neither provision purports to, nor
could it, cut down the review contemplated by this Court's own
Rules in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, a jurisdiction the Cr.P.C.
does not create and cannot curtail.
27. This view is consistent with the ruling of a Division Bench
of this Court in D.Kumar v. Raichand Daga (supra), which affirms
that this Court, as a court of record, may recall an order passed in a
writ petition where it was passed without hearing a person it
affects, without drawing any distinction on the ground that the writ
petition was one of a criminal nature; and with the several decisions
15
noticed below, including Vishnu Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh ,
holding that Section 362 Cr.P.C. is no bar to a recall of this kind.
We, accordingly, hold that Rev.A.No.3 of 2026, though arising out of
a W.P.(Crl.), was maintainable as a petition for review under Rule 29
15 (2011) 14 SCC 813
______________
Page 27 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021, tested on the grounds
available under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
28. We should also deal with the submission that recall is
available only where the order under challenge was one of dismissal
in limine , leaving nothing decided on merits. We do not think the
power is so confined. The same may be one familiar occasion for
recall, but neither Rule 29 of the Rules nor the decisions cited
before us, on either side, limits the power to that occasion alone.
The real question on any application founded on denial of hearing is
whether the person complaining was, on the facts, entitled to a
hearing and was denied it, and not the stage at which, or the extent
to which, the order under challenge decided matters on merits. We
shall examine the review applicant’s case on this footing.
29. Two things weigh with us here. First, the order was
reserved on 04.02.2026 and pronounced only on 20.02.2026, and
admittedly there was a gap of more than two weeks. If the review
applicant, once notice reached him, wished to bring anything to
attention of this Court, nothing stopped him from moving an
______________
Page 28 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
application in that window of 16 days. No such attempt was made.
This, in substance, fortifies the submission of learned Advocate
General that the review applicant sat by and watched the
proceedings before complaining.
30. Second, all that the Court directed was the registration of
a case and an investigation, nothing more. The Court did not, and
at that stage could not, decide anyone's guilt. The observations
record the case of the Enforcement Directorate, not any conclusion
of this Court on it. Whether that material holds up, and whether the
review applicant or his relatives had any part in what is alleged, are
questions for the investigation to answer, and thereafter for a
criminal court to decide, and this Court never intended to settle
those questions in a writ petition that asked only for a case to be
registered.
31. Succinctly put, a direction to register an FIR is not a
finding against anyone. It only starts the process of investigation,
and it is during that investigation, and at trial if matters go that far,
that the review applicant will have every opportunity to place his
______________
Page 29 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
version and test the case against him. Being denied a hearing
before that process even begins is not the kind of prejudice that
calls for recalling an otherwise reasoned order. We are not
persuaded that the delay in serving notice on the review applicant,
amounts to a breach of natural justice to recall the order.
32. This brings us to the authorities placed before us on the
plea of not affording a hearing and they deserve to be dealt with.
33. A large number of the decisions cited, viz., Alexander
16
Rodger v. The Comptoir D'Escompte De Paris , approved in
17 18
A.R.Antulay v. R.S. Nayak , Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab ,
19 20
M.M.Thomas v. State of Kerala , Crown v. Habibullah , Ram v.
21
Emperor , M.V. Elisabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt.
22 23
Ltd , The Bolivar , and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government
24
Industrial Tribunal , are all in support of a single proposition that a
16 [1871] 3 Privy Council 465
17 (1988) 2 SCC 602
18 AIR 1963 SC 1909
19 (2000) 1 SCC 666
20 AIR 1950 Lah 250
21 AIR 1948 All 106
22 1993 Supp (2) SCC 433
23 AIR 1916 PC 85
24 1980 (Supp) SCC 420
______________
Page 30 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
court of record has an inherent power to recall its own order where
the order was passed without hearing a person it affects, or in
ignorance of the fact that a necessary party was never served. We
do not doubt that proposition for a moment, and nothing in this
judgment departs from it.
34. The decisions relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for
25
the review applicant in Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal ,
26 27
Giridharilal v. Pratap Rai Mehta , and Habu v. State of Rajasthan ,
together with Vishnu Agarwal (supra), Vikram Bakshi (supra),
28
Ganesh Patel v. Umarkant Rajoria , and Homi Rajvansh v. State of
29
Maharashtra , establish that Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. is no bar to
such a recall where the order under recall was passed by a court
exercising writ jurisdiction. We accept that too, and have already
applied it in rejecting the threshold objection raised on behalf of the
State and the contempt petitioner.
25 (2009) 2 SCC 703
26 1989 Cr LJ 2382 (Kar)
27 AIR 1987 Raj 83 (FB)
28 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2050
29 (2014) 12 SCC 556
______________
Page 31 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
35. None of this is really in dispute before us. What is in
dispute is whether, on the facts of this case, the review petitioner
was in substance denied a hearing he was entitled to, and, for the
reasons we have already given, we do not think he was. The power
to recall is not in question, its use on these facts is.
36. The decisions in Govind Gopal Lakade v. State of
30 31
Maharashtra and Johra v. State of Haryana were cited for the
proposition that a court cannot frame a question and then simply
leave it hanging. We agree with that general proposition, but it does
not quite fit the facts of the present case. On 28.01.2026 this Court
did not decide, one way or the other, whether notice should go to
the fifth respondent/review applicant and left it open. A notice was,
in fact, issued to him on 02.02.2026. The real grievance, if any, lies
in that delay of service, not in any failure to decide whether notice
should be issued at all.
30 2025 INSC 658
31 (2019) 2 SCC 324
______________
Page 32 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
37. A good deal was said about the decision of the Supreme
32
Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar , with the
suggestion that the State had relied on it while passing over the
parts that helped the review petitioner. We have read the judgment
as a whole. It concerned an order transferring a criminal
investigation to the CBI, a direction with immediate and specific
consequences for the State, which had not been heard before the
transfer was made. The State there was the very party bound by
the direction, yet was kept out of the proceeding. That is quite
different from the present case. The direction here went to the
DVAC, which was a party before us throughout. The review
applicant was not the addressee of any direction, he was, at best, a
person named in material that the Enforcement Directorate had
forwarded and that formed the basis for a direction to someone
else. We do not read the decision in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(supra) as extending so far as to require a hearing for every person
referred to in such material before a case can be directed to be
registered.
32 (2011) 14 SCC 770
______________
Page 33 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
38. The decision in Divine Retreat Centre (supra) was cited for
the proposition that a person aggrieved by an order is entitled to a
hearing before it is passed against him. The said judgment, also
33
considered the earlier decision in Union of India v. W.N.Chadha ,
which the State had relied upon for the proposition that a person
under investigation, or likely to be investigated, has no right to
notice or a hearing before an FIR is registered or an investigation is
set in motion, since to hold otherwise would defeat the object of
investigation itself. Relevant observations made in W.N.Chadha
(supra) are reproduced herein below:
“80. The rule of audi alteram partem is a rule of
justice and its application is excluded where the rule
will itself lead to injustice. In S.A. de Smith's Judicial
Review of Administrative Action, (4th Edn.) at page
184, it is stated that in administrative law, a
prima facie right to prior notice and opportunity
to be heard may be held to be excluded by
implication in the presence of some factors,
singly or in combination with another. Those
special factors are mentioned under items (1)
to (10) under the heading “Exclusion of the
audi alteram partem rule ”.
33 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260
______________
Page 34 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
81. Thus, there is exclusion of the application of
audi alteram partem rule to cases where
nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording
an opportunity to present and meet a case. This
rule cannot be applied to defeat the ends of
justice or to make the law “lifeless, absurd,
stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary
to the common sense of the situation” and this
rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional
circumstances where compulsive necessity so
demands .
82. Bhagwati, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then
was) in Maneka Gandhi [(1992) 4 SCC 305 : 1993
SCC (Cri) 36] speaking for himself, Untwalia and
Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ. has stated thus: (SCC p. 290,
para 14)
“… Now, it is true that since the right to prior
notice and opportunity of hearing arises only
by implication from the duty to act fairly, or
to use the words of Lord Morris of Borth-y-
Gest, from ‘fair play in action’, it may
equally be excluded where, having
regard to the nature of the action to be
taken, its object and purpose and the
scheme of the relevant statutory
______________
Page 35 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
provision, fairness in action does not
demand its implication and even
warrants its exclusion .”
83. Thus, it is seen from the decision in Maneka
Gandhi [(1978) 1 SCC 248] that there are certain
exceptional circumstances and situations
whereunder the application of the rule of audi
alteram partem is not attracted .
...
89. Applying the above principle, it may be held that
when the investigating officer is not deciding
any matter except collecting the materials for
ascertaining whether a prima facie case is
made out or not and a full enquiry in case of
filing a report under Section 173(2) follows in a
trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to
the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at
that stage rule of audi alteram partem
superimposes an obligation to issue a prior
notice and hear the accused which the statute
does not expressly recognise. The question is
not whether audi alteram partem is implicit,
but whether the occasion for its attraction
exists at all .
______________
Page 36 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
90. Under the scheme of Chapter XII of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, there are various
provisions under which no prior notice or
opportunity of being heard is conferred as a
matter of course to an accused person while
the proceeding is in the stage of an
investigation by a police officer. ”
[ emphasis supplied ]
39. We find W.N.Chadha (supra) squarely applicable here, and
we find it reinforced by the more recent decision in E.Sivakumar v.
34
Union of India , where, in upholding an order transferring the
investigation of a multi-State offence to the CBI, the Supreme Court
held that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of
investigation, and that a person named as an accused not having
been impleaded or heard in the writ petition cannot, by itself, be the
basis to treat the resulting judgment as a nullity. Whether the
proceeding is brought under the ordinary criminal law or under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India makes no real difference to
this principle, because what matters is the nature of the order, not
the forum that passes it. A direction to register a case and
34 (2018) 7 SCC 365
______________
Page 37 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
investigate is, by its very character, a preliminary step. It settles
nobody's guilt, and it need not await the version of every person
who might eventually come to be investigated. The review applicant
will have his say, in full, once the investigation reaches him.
40. We were also taken to XXX v. State of Kerala (supra), the
recent judgment on Section 175(4) of the BNSS, and it was
suggested that this provision required the review applicant to be
heard before the Court could direct a case to be registered against
him. We had occasion to consider this very judgment while dealing
with the State's review, and we do not think it carries the review
applicant any further either. Section 175(4) of the BNSS stipulates
the procedure a Magistrate must follow before directing an
investigation on a complaint made under Section 175(3) of the
BNSS. It requires the Magistrate to call for a report from the public
servant's superior and consider his version. That is a specific
safeguard built into a specific statutory procedure. It is not, in our
view, a general right of pre-decisional hearing attaching itself to
every proceeding, of whatever kind, that might in due course lead
to a police investigation, and we do not think it applies to a writ
______________
Page 38 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
court acting on information already forwarded by a statutory agency
showing, prima facie , a cognizable offence.
41. For these reasons, Rev.A.No.3 of 2026 fails and is
dismissed.
42. In Cont.P.No.872 of 2026, the complaint is that the order
of this court dated 20.02.2026 had not been obeyed. With
Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 now withdrawn, and with learned Advocate
General placing on record a clear assurance that the authority
concerned shall carry the investigation forward based on the FIR
registered, the very grievance behind the contempt petition stands
met. We see no purpose in keeping the contempt petition alive.
43. We, accordingly, close Cont.P.No.872 of 2026.
In conclusion:
(i) Rev.A.No.2 of 2026 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(ii) Rev.A.No.3 of 2026 is dismissed.
(iii) Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 is closed in the above terms.
______________
Page 39 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
(iv) There shall be no order as to costs.
(v) Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed, in
the light of the observations made in the preceding
paragraphs.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
26.10.2026
Index : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
sasi
______________
Page 40 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
To:
1. The Director,
Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption
(DVAC), No.293, MKN Road, Ramapuram,
Collectors Nagar, Alandur, Chennai-600016.
2. The Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai - 600 004.
3. The Director of Enforcement,
Rep. By Assistant Director
rd
Shastri Bhavan, 3 Floor, 3 Block
B-Wing, No.26, Haddows Road
Chennai – 600 006.
4. The Secretary
State of Tamil Nadu
Home Department, Secretariat
Chennai - 600 009.
______________
Page 41 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )
2026:MHC:4285
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 etc.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
Cont.P.No.872 of 2026; Rev.Aplwp. Crl. Nos.2 and 3 of 2026
26.10.2026
______________
Page 42 of 42
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 11:18:50 am )