3 months ago
2
The Tamil Nadu authorities connected Wednesday (January 28, 2026) told the Madras High Court that it had forwarded Directorate of Enforcement’s (ED) October 27, 2025 communication, levelling a cash-for-jobs allegation successful the Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) department led by Minister K.N. Nehru, to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) arsenic aboriginal arsenic connected November 1, 2025 itself.
Appearing earlier Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, Advocate General (A-G) P.S. Raman said, the DVAC was present conducting a ‘detailed inquiry’ arsenic required nether the Vigilance Manual. When the judges wanted to cognize who would beryllium summoned for inquiry, the A-G said: “Whomever we find is answerable to the allegation, we whitethorn telephone them for an inquiry.”
The submissions were made during the proceeding of a writ petition filed by K. Athinarayanan of Kallikudi successful Madurai district. The petitioner had sought a absorption to the Director General of Police (DGP) to instrumentality due enactment connected the ground of ED’s communication. He had filed the writ petition successful the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court connected November 24, 2025 but it was transferred to the main spot successful Chennai.
Responding to the case, the A-G said, the ED, successful its connection to the DGP connected October 27, 2025, had claimed to person recovered immoderate materials regarding alleged irregularities that had taken spot successful the MAWS section recruitment successful 2024-25. The materials were reportedly collected during the probe successful different lawsuit and the ED wanted the State constabulary to registry a First Information Report (FIR).
The DGP forwarded the ED’s connection to the State authorities and the latter, successful turn, forwarded it to the DVAC connected November 1, 2025. Thereafter, connected November 4, 2025; the DVAC requested the authorities to accord authorisation nether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) of 1988 earlier commencing a ‘detailed inquiry’ and the authorities promptly accorded the saction, the A-G said.
Further, stating that the DVAC had commenced the ‘detailed inquiry’ from December 15, 2025; the A-G said, the Vigilance Manual prescribes a timeline of 180 days for completing the inquiry. He besides said, the ‘detailed inquiry’ was antithetic from a preliminary inquiry, conducted successful transgression cases, since the erstwhile empowers the DVAC to summon witnesses, grounds their statements and adjacent behaviour searches, if necessary.
When the Chief Justice wanted to cognize the imaginable result of the ‘detailed inquiry,’ the A-G said, it could culminate successful the DVAC deciding to registry a FIR if the alleged offences were recovered to made retired oregon successful the closure of the enquiry if the alleged offences were not recovered to made retired against the suspects. Once the instrumentality had been acceptable successful question by commencing an inquiry, the petitioner could not importune upon registration of FIR, helium added.
On the different hand, ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh contended that the materials which the cardinal bureau had shared with the DGP were not successful the quality of accusation but they were successful the quality of grounds and therefore, the DVAC indispensable needfully registry a FIR and not behaviour an inquiry. He submitted each those incriminating materials, successful a sealed cover, earlier the Division Bench for its perusal.
Stating that the ED was statutorily obligated to stock information, successful transportation with immoderate crime, with the State constabulary nether Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002, Mr. Ramesh said, the Supreme Court successful paragraph 151 of the celebrated Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s lawsuit (considered an authorization connected PMLA) had categorically held that the constabulary indispensable registry a FIR connected receipt of materials shared by the ED.
However, elder counsel Vikram Choudhary, representing the DGP, said, “the aforesaid Supreme Court successful paragraph 163 virtually dilutes what it had said successful paragraph 151.” He said, the State constabulary was not obligated to registry a FIR successful PCA cases unless it was a trap lawsuit and that the wide process adopted nether the Vigilance Manual was to behaviour a enquiry earlier deciding to either registry oregon not registry a FIR.
Subsequently, erstwhile Mr. Raman said, the writ petitioner earlier the tribunal was facing arsenic galore arsenic 25 transgression cases including six for the charges of execution and effort to murder, the judges asked the petitioner’s counsel to record his reponse successful penning and adjourned the proceeding successful the lawsuit to February 4. They besides adjourned to the aforesaid day yet different writ petition filed by AIADMK MP I.S. Inbadurai seeking a akin prayer.
