The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Wednesday assured the Madras High Court of a “proper and full fledged inquiry” in a cash-for-jobs complaint lodged by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against Minister K.N. Nehru’s Muncipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, senior counsel N.R. Elango, representing the DVAC, said the latter would also be writing to the ED, asking the agency to share any other material in its possession.
The submissions were made before the Bench reserved its orders on two writ petitions, one filed by K. Athinarayanan of Madurai and another by AIADMK Rajya Sabha member I.S. Inbadurai, seeking a direction to the DVAC to register a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the alleged scam.
Mr. Elango said the information shared by the ED with the Tamil Nadu police had been treated as the first information and the DVAC had begun a ‘detailed inquiry’ into the issue as per the provisions of the Vigilance Manual that was one of the country’s oldest manual approved by the Supreme Court.
Hence, the information shared by the writ petitioners could not be treated as the first information and an FIR could not be filed without awaiting the outcome of the ‘detailed inquiry,’ the senior counsel said, adding that the DVAC would probe without any preconceived notions.
During the beginning of the hearing, the Chief Justice expressed displeasure over the first writ petitioner from Madurai not having disclosed his antecedents in his affidavit though he had been facing several criminal cases for the last few years, including one for the charge of attempt to murder.
Thereafter, the Bench went on to hear the arguments of senior counsel V. Raghavachari, for the AIADMK MP, who relied upon three Supreme Court judgments in support of his argument that the DVAC was duty-bound to register an FIR on the basis of information shared by the ED and that a detailed inquiry would not suffice.
ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh said the agency had not just shared information but had actually shared evidence running to 232 pages that clearly demonstrate the commission of a cognisable offence, and therefore, the DVAC could not but register an FIR on the basis of the materials.
However, Advocate General P.S. Raman said the ED had collected those materials during a search and seizure operation carried out in April 2025 in connection with a bank fraud case. He said a Division Bench of the High Court had in July 24, 2025 quashed the Enforcement Case Information Report booked in that case.
“Thereafter, the ED was supposed to have returned all those materials to the individuals concerned. However, it had retained a copy of all those materials, waited for about three months, and then shared them with the Director-General of Police of Tamil Nadu on October 27, 2025,” he said.
Stating the Tamil Nadu government had acted with alacrity by forwarding the ED’s communication to the DVAC which had now begun a ‘detailed inquiry,’ the A-G said, the outcome of the inquiry would be placed before the government, within the stipulated time of 180 days, for further action.
Published – February 05, 2026 12:32 am IST
