Published Nov 02, 2026 | 3:49 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 02, 2026 | 3:49 PM
Ex-Tamil Nadu Minister KN Nehru.
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by former DMK minister KN Nehru challenging the Madras High Court’s refusal to review its order directing the registration of an FIR against him.
The petition came up for hearing before a Bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta.
During the hearing, the judges observed that technical arguments could be considered later but questioned why Nehru, a former minister, had not approached the court immediately after receiving notice of the allegations against him.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for KN Nehru, argued that the complainant in the case was a political rival and that the proceedings against his client were politically motivated. He contended that the case violated the principles of natural justice as proper procedures had not been followed. He also argued that the observations made by the Madras High Court against Nehru were made without sufficient prima facie grounds and could influence the investigation.
Nehru’s counsel further submitted that the Madras High Court had relied on certain documents submitted in a sealed cover while passing its order against him. However, the contents of those documents had not been disclosed to Nehru, nor was he given an opportunity to respond to them.
The counsel also argued that the High Court had prematurely viewed a former minister, his brothers and people close to him with suspicion at the initial stage of the investigation, which could adversely affect the entire probe.
Referring to information gathered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the counsel submitted that the Tamil Nadu Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was planning to initiate action against Nehru based on information allegedly obtained from his brothers and close associates. The information reportedly concerned details of people awaiting government employment that had been sent to government officials.
He argued that the Madras High Court had accepted the justification for the proposed action without seeking Nehru’s explanation or giving him an opportunity to present his side of the case.
The judges, however, questioned why several of the arguments now being raised before the Supreme Court had not been presented before the Madras High Court. They asked the counsel to point out where these arguments had been raised before the High Court, observing that Nehru could not now claim that his submissions had not been heard without demonstrating that he had raised them earlier.
In response, the counsel submitted that the Madras High Court had not allowed them to present their arguments in detail.
The judges observed that the person concerned had been in charge of the relevant ministry and that it was important to identify those behind the alleged irregularities. They said registration of a case was necessary to investigate the matter and establish the facts.
Nehru’s counsel reiterated that his request was only for a fair procedure and maintained that the complainant was a political rival.
The Supreme Court declined to pass any further orders in the matter and dismissed Nehru’s appeal.
The judges further observed that Nehru should have approached the Supreme Court immediately after the Madras High Court ordered the registration of an FIR against him, instead of filing a review petition before the same High Court.
They noted that Nehru had subsequently been allowed to present his arguments through the review proceedings, but the petition was still dismissed. The judges said the Madras High Court must have passed its order based on important documents and concluded that there was no further ground for interference.
Also Read:
(With inputs from Subash Chandra Bose. Edited by R Rajesh Kumar.)
