Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Former Minister KN Nehru's Plea To Review Direction For Corruption FIR Against Him

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan reserved the order after hearing Nehru, Tamil Nadu DVAC, and the State. The court has also extended its interim order, directing the DVAC not to take any coercive action against Nehru till the pronouncement of orders.

The case relates to an order passed by the High Court in February this year directing the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case forthwith based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a corruption case involving the former Minister. Nehru and his brothers approached the court seeking a review of this order, arguing that they were not heard. The State had also sought a review of the order.

However, after the change in State Government following the 2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly elections, when the case was taken up for hearing, the newly appointed Advocate General Vijay Narayan informed the court that the TN DVAC had registered an FIR against Nehru. It was also informed that the State intended to withdraw its review petition.

When the court pointed out that the State had earlier given an undertaking that it would not take any action and wondered how the FIR came to be registered, the AG submitted that the undertaking made by the former AG, who was acting under the instructions of the then government, would not be binding on the new government. The court then restrained the State from taking any action against Nehru till the matter was heard.

Previously, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Nehru, argued that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It was argued that Nehru had a right to be heard before the court passed an order for registering an FIR against him. Though it was argued that the orders were passed in a writ of criminal nature and thus a review would not be maintainable, it was argued that no legal bar would apply in this case since the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the Tamil Nadu DVAC, had argued that there is no requirement in law to hear a proposed accused before a court orders registration of an FIR. It also argued that a procedural review of the court's order can be sought only when the order is dismissed in limine, without going into the merits of the case. In the present case, it was argued that the original petition was filed by someone else, and only the petitioner could approach the court seeking a review.

It was also pointed out by the TN DVAC that as per Section 362 CrPC, there was a statutory ban on all court, including the High Court from reviewing a criminal matter. He added that the only exception was the Supreme Court, which could hear a review against a criminal matter also. Thus, the probe agency sought to reject the plea.

When the matter was taken up on Monday, Advocate General Vijay Narayan argued that Nehru could not claim that he was unaware of the proceedings against him, and should not have waited till the passing of the orders to challenge the proceedings. Narayan alleged that the previous government had attempted to delay the prosecution and had tried to shield one of its top Ministers. He thus argued that it was a classic case of a person sitting on the fence and waiting till the orders are passed to challenge it. The AG argued that such a person could not come and say that he had a right to be heard.

“It was not as if he was not aware of what was happening in court. Media was reporting continuously. The government tried to delay it. An attempt was made by the previous government to shield one of its Ministers...A person who sits on the fence, waits to see what order will be passed, cannot come and say he had a right to be heard,” the AG argued.

After hearing the parties, the court reserved the orders and extended the interim stay.

Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others

Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026