New Delhi, Nov 2: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed a plea of former Tamil Nadu minister and DMK leader K N Nehru challenging a Madras High Court direction to register an FIR against him in the alleged Rs 634 crore cash-for-job scam.
Dismissing his petition, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said there was no ground to interfere with the high court’s February 20 judgment and the October 26 order.
On October 26, the high court dismissed Nehru’s review petition challenging its earlier order, which directed the DVAC to register a case based on information provided by the ED in the alleged Rs 634 crore “cash-for-job” scam.
It also dismissed the review petition filed by the state government after it withdrew from the case.
The matter pertains to allegations of cash-for-jobs allegations when Nehru, a DMK strongman from Tiruchirappalli, headed the Municipal Administration and Water Supply department during the 2021-26 DMK rule in Tamil Nadu.
Dismissing the review petition, the bench, in its order, said two things weigh with it here. First, the order was reserved on February 4, 2026 and pronounced only on February 20, 2026, and admittedly there was a gap of more than two weeks. If the review applicant, once notice reached him, wished to bring anything to the attention of the court, nothing stopped him from moving an application in that window of 16 days. No such attempt was made.
This, in substance, fortifies the submission of Advocate General that the review applicant sat by and watched the proceedings before complaining, the bench added.
The bench said second, all that the court directed was the registration of a case and an investigation, nothing more. The court did not, and at that stage could not, decide anyone’s guilt. The observations record the case of the Enforcement Directorate, not any conclusion of this court on it. Whether that material holds up, and whether the review applicant or his relatives had any part in what was alleged, were questions for the investigation to answer, and thereafter for a criminal court to decide.
Whether that material holds up, and whether the review applicant or his relatives had any part in what was alleged, were questions for the investigation to answer, and thereafter for a criminal court to decide, it said.
The HC bench further said a direction to register a case and investigate was, by its very character, a preliminary step. It settles nobody’s guilt, and it need not await the version of every person who might eventually come to be investigated.
The review applicant will have his say, in full, once the investigation reaches him, the bench added.
The HC bench further said that in the contempt petition, the complaint was that the order of this court dated February 20, 2026 had not been obeyed. With the review petition now withdrawn, and with the Advocate General placing on record a clear assurance that the authority concerned shall carry the investigation forward based on the FIR registered, the very grievance behind the contempt petition stands met. (PTI)
