A significant turn unfolded before the Madras High Court on Friday when the Tamil Nadu government indicated that it plans to withdraw its review petition linked to an earlier judicial directive ordering the registration of a Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) case against former Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru.
The matter came up before a Bench led by Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan. While taking note of the State’s intention to step back from one of the review proceedings, the Bench simultaneously directed authorities not to carry forward any further action in the case until June 23.
The Court’s intervention followed submissions that a First Information Report (FIR) had already been registered against Nehru. This development drew attention because an earlier statement made before the Court had suggested that no coercive measures would be initiated until the matter was heard again.
Observing the circumstances, the Bench said that in light of the assurance previously recorded from the then Advocate General, State authorities should refrain from taking any further steps against any party involved until the next hearing date.
The proceedings stem from a contempt petition filed by AIADMK Rajya Sabha member I.S. Inbadurai, along with connected review applications challenging an earlier High Court order.
In February, the High Court had instructed the DVAC to register a criminal case based on information supplied by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which alleged extensive irregularities within the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department. The allegations relate to transfers, postings and the awarding of municipal contracts.
At that stage, the Court had sharply criticised the then DMK-led administration for delaying the registration of the case. It had also concluded that the material placed before it disclosed the commission of a cognisable offence, warranting immediate action. The State subsequently sought a review of that decision.
Political developments have since altered the backdrop of the litigation. Following the recent Assembly elections, a TVK-led government assumed office in May.
During an earlier hearing on April 28, the Court had been informed that no coercive action would be pursued in the meantime. The latest hearing was triggered after counsel for one of the review applicants alleged that authorities were nevertheless proceeding with investigative measures despite that understanding.
Appearing for Inbadurai, Senior Advocate V. Raghavachari told the Court that the contempt petitioner had not taken any steps to accelerate the contempt proceedings since the earlier hearing.
The Bench also recalled that the former Advocate General had stated before the Court that no coercive action would be initiated before the next hearing date. However, Advocate General Vijay Narayan, representing the present government, informed the Court that an FIR had already been registered.
Narayan further submitted that the State intends to withdraw one of its review applications. He added that he was unaware of the earlier statement made by his predecessor and argued that, in the absence of any formal stay order, authorities had proceeded with the matter.
The Court noted that none of the lawyers present disputed this factual position. Nevertheless, it observed that since the case was already scheduled for hearing on June 23, suspending further proceedings until then would not prejudice the State.
The matter will now be taken up again on June 23. Senior Advocate Arvindh Pandian appeared for another review applicant, while Public Prosecutor John Sathiyan and Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh represented the respondents.
