“I Had A Right To Be Heard”: Former TN Minister KN Nehru Seeks Review Of High Court Order Directing Corruption FIR Against Him
Former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru on Tuesday (July 28) urged the Madras High Court to review its earlier order directing the registration of a corruption FIR against him, contending that the order was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Nehru, made...
Former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru on Tuesday (July 28) urged the Madras High Court to review its earlier order directing the registration of a corruption FIR against him, contending that the order was passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Nehru, made the submissions before a bench comprising Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, which was hearing review petitions filed by Nehru and others against the High Court's February 20 order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
“I have a right. I had a right to be heard. I'm a party, not a stranger to the litigation. My right to be heard and right to press is something that ought not to be curtailed,” Luthra argued.
The Advocate General, Vijay Narayan, had questioned the maintainability of the review petition filed by Nehru. He argued that since the orders were passed in a writ petition of criminal nature, there was a legal bar under Section 362 CrPC on entertaining a review against the same.
To this, Luthra argued that even if it was presumed that the orders were passed in a writ of criminal nature, no legal bar would apply in this case since the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Luthra emphasised that the moment a party in a case is not heard, that itself would become a ground for recall or review of the order.
“The issue today is one, notice was issued and orders reserved on same day without hearing me. When I'm not heard, no legal bar will apply since it is violation of natural justice principle. Two, the issue of not being heard and being proceeded with has been considered by courts in number of cases. Fact is, the moment party in a cause is not heard, that itself is a ground for recall or review of the order,” Luthra argued.
Luthra also argued that the orders were passed by the court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. He argued that as per settled law, when the court is exercising writ jurisdiction, it is bound by rules. He added that as per Rules, a review would lie.
“The court was not acting as a criminal court. It was exercising writ jurisdiction. So irrespective of nomenclature, it is a mandamus…If an order has been in passed in exercise of excess jurisdiction, without following natural justice, without hearing party or an order has been obtained by manifest arbitrariness, court can exercise jurisdiction to recall the order.
Law is settled. When this court is sitting under 226 jurisdiction, court is bound by rules. Rules are clear that a review will lie. Even if it is a writ covered by provisions of CrPC, bar under S. 362 will not apply. Today I'm not asking the court to examine my issue on merits. What I want the court to consider is that if I'm not heard, shouldn't I be given an opportunity to espouse by cause?” Luthra argued.
Luthra also argued that the Writ Rules and the Letters Patent Act of the Madras High Court would permit a review, when the party is not heard.
After Luthra, Senior Advocate PH Aravind Pandian also made submissions on behalf of the review petitioners, taking the court through various judgments of the Supreme Court, allowing review in similar cases.
After hearing the review petitioners, the Court adjourned the matter to August 7 for the State to advance its submissions.
Background
On February 20, the bench had directed the Tamil Nadu DVAC to register a case forthwith based on the materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court had also criticised the delay on the part of the State in proceeding with the investigation even after the ED had shared materials, which prima facie showed the commission of an offence. The court noted that in cases involving such sensitive issues, the State should have acted diligently and registered a case without delay.
Stating that no FIR had been registered against Nehru despite the court order, Rajya Sabha MP Inbadurai had approached the Madras High Court seeking action against IPS officer AT Durai Kumar (In-Charge Director of Directorate for Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) for alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court order.
When the contempt petition came up for hearing previously, then Advocate General PS Raman informed the court that the delay in registering an FIR was only because the state was contemplating filing a review against the order directing registration of the FIR. Following this, the State had filed a review petition.
After a 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 State was withdrawing the review. The AG also informed the court that the TN DVAC had registered an FIR against Nehru.
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.
The State's move to withdraw the review was questioned by Nehru, who argued that the State could not be allowed to change its stand with a change in the government and say that the winds have changed.
Case Title: KN Nehru v IS Inbadurai and Others
Case No: Rev Aplwp Crl 3 of 2026