Tamil Nadu Minister’s Bid to Undo FIR Direction in Alleged Recruitment Scam Fails; Madras HC Says No Prior Hearing Was Due

The Enforcement Directorate forwarded material to the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act concerning alleged irregularities in recruitment to 2,538 posts in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.

After the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) did not act on his representation, Rajya Sabha Member I.S. Inbadurai petitioned the High Court.

On 20 February 2026, the Court directed the DVAC to register a case on the information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate and conduct an investigation.

Inbadurai later filed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance.

The State and Minister K.N. Nehru sought review of the order.

At the hearing, the State withdrew its review, stating that an FIR had been registered and the investigation would proceed; Inbadurai did not press for punitive contempt relief in light of that assurance.

Nehru pursued his review, principally alleging that he had not received a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the order was made.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to exercise writ jurisdiction, and Rule 29 of the Madras High Court Writ Rules, 2021 permits review of its orders on the grounds in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; the Rules apply to Article 226 petitions, including those titled “W.P.(Crl.)”.

Sections 362 CrPC and 403 BNSS restrict a criminal court’s power to alter or review its judgments but do not bar review by the High Court of an order made in its writ jurisdiction under its own Rules.

A court of record may recall an order where a person entitled to be heard was denied a hearing, but the right to a pre-investigation hearing does not ordinarily arise for a person who may be investigated: a direction to register a case initiates investigation and determines no one’s guilt.

Union of India v. W.N. Chadha, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, and E. Sivakumar v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 365, support the principle that natural justice does not generally require prior notice to a proposed accused before investigation begins.

Section 175(4) BNSS prescribes a safeguard for a Magistrate considering an application under Section 175(3); the Court held that it does not create a general pre-decisional hearing right in writ proceedings.

The Court held that the review was maintainable because the challenged order was made under Article 226, not by a criminal court exercising criminal jurisdiction, and the Madras High Court Writ Rules expressly provide for review.

On the merits of Nehru’s hearing claim, the Court noted that notice had reached him sixteen days before the order was pronounced, but he made no application to bring material to the Court’s attention or reopen the hearing.

The order directed only registration and investigation; it made no finding of guilt, and the material’s reliability and the involvement of the Minister or his relatives remained matters for investigation and, if appropriate, trial.

Applying W.N. Chadha and E. Sivakumar, the Court concluded that a proposed accused was not entitled to be heard before that preliminary investigative step.

It further distinguished Section 175(4) BNSS as a procedure specific to a Magistrate acting under Section 175(3), not a general hearing requirement for a writ court.

The State’s review was withdrawn after the State reported compliance, while the contempt petitioner accepted the assurance that the investigation would proceed.

The State’s review was dismissed as withdrawn.

The contempt petition was closed after the Court recorded the State’s assurance that the investigation would proceed on the registered FIR.

No order as to costs was made.