Madras HC dismisses KN Nehru's plea in cash-for-jobs case
- Madras High Court dismissed KN Nehru's review petition on October 26, 2026.
- The case involves an alleged ₹634 crore cash-for-jobs scam in the Municipal Administration Department.
- The original February 2026 order directed the DVAC to register an FIR based on ED materials.
- KN Nehru argued the order violated natural justice as he was not heard.
- The court clarified that the original order did not specifically name Nehru as an accused.
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan, dismissed a review petition filed by former Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK leader KN Nehru on October 26, 2026. This ruling maintains the original February 20, 2026, court directive for an FIR investigation into an alleged ₹634 crore cash-for-jobs scam.
The court clarified that this dismissal does not establish the allegations against Nehru as proven facts. The Madras High Court holds appellate jurisdiction over Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and exercises original jurisdiction in Chennai.
On October 21, the Central Crime Branch informed the court about interactions between Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi and the family of an absconding accused. On October 22, the court heard a bail plea from a Rajasthan youth accused of using deepfake videos of Chief Minister Vijay to collect money.
The court also ruled on October 23 that a husband's affair does not constitute cruelty by itself under IPC Section 498A. On the same day, the court set aside a family court order that failed to mandate interaction with a child.
Origins of the ₹634 crore cash-for-jobs scam case
The case originated from a petition by AIADMK Rajya Sabha MP IS Inbadurai alleging a ₹634 crore cash-for-jobs scam. This scam reportedly involved the recruitment of 2,538 government posts within the Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department.
On February 20, 2026, the court directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to register an FIR based on material shared by the Enforcement Directorate.
Arguments on natural justice and maintainability
KN Nehru argued in his review petition that the February 20 order violated the principles of natural justice. He contended that the court issued the order without hearing him, despite the allegations concerning his tenure as Municipal Administration Minister.
The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption opposed the petition, stating that a proposed accused does not require a hearing before a court directs an FIR. The agency also questioned whether Nehru could maintain a review petition against an order passed on another person's plea.
State government's stance on the FIR and review plea
Following a change in the Tamil Nadu government, state officials informed the High Court in June 2026 that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption had registered an FIR. The government sought to withdraw the review petition previously filed by its predecessor.
KN Nehru opposed the state's decision to withdraw the petition. He argued that a change in the political party governing the state did not justify abandoning an earlier legal position.
Court clarifies scope of February 2026 order
The High Court clarified during the proceedings that its February 2026 order required the registration of a case concerning the alleged offences. The court stated that the order did not specifically direct that an FIR be registered against KN Nehru.
Frequently Asked Questions
Add NewsPulse Time as a preferred source on Google