Madras High Court Orders FIR on Cash-for-Jobs Complaint in K.N. Nehru’s Department

The Madras High Court directed the DVAC to immediately register a criminal case over alleged irregularities in appointments to 2,538 posts in Tamil Nadu’s Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department
The Madras High Court on February 20, 2026, directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to immediately register a criminal case in connection with alleged irregularities in recruitment to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department (MAWS) headed by Tamil Nadu Minister K.N. Nehru.
The bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan held that material shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences and that the state could not delay registration of an FIR by continuing preliminary enquiries.
The direction came in a batch of writ petitions relating to alleged “cash-for-jobs” irregularities in appointments to around 2,538 posts, including Assistant Engineers, Junior Engineers and Town Planning Officers in the department. The ED had, on October 27, 2025, forwarded material to the State police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
According to the judgment, the ED shared 232 pages of documents and digital records, including communications, electronic data and purported selection lists. The material was not treated as a mere complaint but as detailed source information indicating prima facie commission of cognizable offences in the recruitment process.
One of the petitions was filed as a public interest litigation seeking action on the ED’s communication. The other was filed by AIADMK's Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai, who sought a direction to register an FIR based on his representation dated December 13, 2025, and the ED material. The MP argued that once detailed source information from a statutory agency disclosed cognizable offences, registration of an FIR was mandatory under settled Supreme Court law.
The state opposed the petitions, contending that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had initiated a preliminary enquiry after obtaining approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It submitted that the matter was being examined and that registration of a case could follow the enquiry. The state also argued that the ED communication arose from a money-laundering investigation and that related proceedings had been quashed.
The division bench rejected the justification for delay. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. (2014), the court reiterated that registration of an FIR under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) is mandatory where information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. Preliminary enquiry, it said, is permissible only to ascertain whether such offence is disclosed, and cannot be used as a device to indefinitely postpone registration.
The bench observed that nearly three and a half months had elapsed since the ED shared the source information, yet no case had been registered. In matters involving serious allegations of corruption and large-scale recruitment affecting thousands of candidates, delay in registration and investigation could result in destruction of material evidence and undermine public confidence, the court said.
While declining to entertain the public interest litigation on the ground that the petitioner lacked bona fides and had criminal antecedents, court proceeded to examine the criminal writ petition filed by Inbadurai. It held that the allegations were based not merely on political assertions but on material forwarded by a statutory investigating agency.
In its operative direction, court ordered the DVAC 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".
Case Title: K. Athinarayanan vs. The State and Others with connected matters
Order Date: February 20, 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan
