The Madras High Court on Monday dismissed a review petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru challenging its earlier order directing registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in connection with an alleged cash-for-jobs scam in the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department [KN Nehru Vs Inbadurai].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea seeking reconsideration of the Court's February 20 order directing the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register a case based on material shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The proceedings arose from review petitions filed by Nehru and the State government against the Madras High Court's February 20, 2026 order.
The order directed the DVAC to register an FIR over alleged irregularities in recruitment to the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
The original order was passed on a petition filed by AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP IS Inbadurai, who alleged that the State police had failed to act on information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning an alleged ₹634 crore cash-for-jobs scam involving recruitment to 2,538 government posts.
In his review petition, Nehru contended that the High Court had issued the direction without hearing him, despite the allegations concerning his tenure as Municipal Administration Minister. He argued that the order violated the principles of natural justice and warranted reconsideration.
The then DMK-led State government also sought review of the order. Meanwhile, Inbadurai initiated contempt proceedings against the DVAC authorities, alleging failure to comply with the direction to register an FIR.
The controversy took another turn following a change of government in Tamil Nadu. In June 2026, the State informed the High Court that the DVAC had registered an FIR and that the new government intended to withdraw the review petition filed by its predecessor.
Nehru opposed the State's changed position, contending that a change in the political party governing the State could not, by itself, justify abandoning an earlier legal stand. Questions were also raised about the maintainability of the review proceedings and whether a prospective accused was entitled to be heard before the Court directed registration of an FIR.
The High Court had clarified during the proceedings that its February order required registration of a case concerning the alleged offences and did not specifically direct that an FIR be registered against Nehru.