DVAC files FIR over cash-for-jobs complaint in Municipal Administration Department during K.N. Nehru’s tenure

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on Friday (June 5, 2026) informed the Madras High Court of having registered a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the cash-for-jobs complaint in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) department during the tenure of former Minister K.N. Nehru of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK).

Appearing before the first Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Advocate General Vijay Narayan said, the DVAC had registered the FIR on Friday after obtaining his legal opinion on the matter. The submission was made pursuant to an urgent mention made before the Bench by senior counsel P.H. Arvindh Pandian representing Mr. Nehru.

Though two review petitions and a contempt-of-court petition related to the matter were slated to be listed for hearing next only on June 23, the A-G said, Mr. Nehru’s counsel had chosen to make a mention on Friday “probably because they had some advance information.” The A-G highlighted that the High Court, on February 20, 2026, directed the DVAC to register the FIR “forthwith.”

Nevertheless, the DVAC did not obey the court order and the then DMK government went to the extent of filing a review petition against it. Mr. Narayan said, the present government, led by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), does not intend to proceed with the review petition and the office of the government counsel (criminal side) shall make an endorsement for withdrawing the State’s review petition.

This would leave the court with just the review petition filed by Mr. Nehru, in his individual capacity, and a contempt-of-court petition filed by All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) Rajya Sabha member I.S. Inbadurai, against the DVAC officials, on whose writ petition the court had ordered the registration of the FIR forthwith, the A-G said.

On going through the records related to the review and the contempt petitions, the A-G said, he found the court to have only recorded the undertaking of the contempt petitioner’s counsel in April 2026 that he shall not precipitate the matter until the next date of hearing on June 23. Therefore, “I opined that the DVAC can go ahead, and so they have registered the FIR,” he said.

The A-G also said, there was nothing on record with respect to any undertaking having been given by his predecessor P.S. Raman that the DVAC shall not take any coercive action until the next date of hearing. Even if any such unrecorded oral undertaking had been given by the previous A-G, it would have been done “only under the instructions of the then government which wanted to protect its Minister,” Mr. Narayan said.

What Nehru’s counsel said

Mr. Pandian, on the other hand, said, “a very strange argument is being made before the court that the undertaking given by one A-G does not bind the other A-G. Utimately, it is the constitutional office which matters. The government will always be the same. It does not change with a change in the people running it. We will file our objections even to the withdrawal of the State’s review petition.”

After hearing both sides, the judges suggested that it would be better if the DVAC does not precipitate the issue until the agreed next date of hearing on June 23, 2026 and said, they shall pass detailed orders, too, regarding this in the course of the day.