Madras High Court Orders DVAC to Register Corruption Case Based on ED Evidence
In a significant legal development, the Madras High Court has delivered a setback to the Tamil Nadu government by directing the state's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to immediately register a case based on information and evidence shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The court's order, issued on Friday, pertains to alleged multi-crore corruption within the state's municipal administration department.
Court's Rationale for Directing FIR Registration
The first bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan, emphasized that the detailed source information provided by the ED, accompanied by voluminous evidence, clearly discloses the commission of a cognizable offense. The bench stated, "The details shared and the materials available reveal that those candidates got selected pursuant to the alleged transactions and when a large-scale corruption stated to have happened involving several hundred crores of rupees, we find that the source material is sufficient to disclose commission of a cognizable offence."
Furthermore, the court clarified that this is not a scenario where authorities have received a mere complaint necessitating a preliminary inquiry by the vigilance department. Instead, it involves comprehensive evidence from the ED that warrants immediate action. Though the bench expressed satisfaction that the investigation could be entrusted to an independent agency, it noted that since the DVAC has already been entrusted with the case by the state, it is appropriate to direct the DVAC to forthwith register a case and conduct a detailed probe, with suitable further action based on the investigation report.
Background and Legal Proceedings
The court passed these orders in response to a plea moved by the ED and AIADMK MP I S Inbadurai. The issue revolves around a series of information shared by the ED with the Tamil Nadu Director General of Police (DGP), alleging widespread corruption in the municipal administration department. These allegations include irregularities in floating tenders and corrupt practices related to transfers and postings within the department.
Representing the state, Advocate-General P S Raman argued that neither an accused nor an informant can demand the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) when an investigation agency intends to conduct a detailed or preliminary inquiry. Raman pointed out that a refusal to file an FIR would only make the ED an aggrieved party as an informant. He also highlighted that two unconnected individuals, Inbadurai and Athinarayanan, who have several pending criminal cases including murder and attempt to murder, approached the court.
Raman further explained that all the information shared by the ED was collected by the agency in April 2025 in connection with a bank fraud case. Since the bank fraud case and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed by the ED were quashed by a division bench of the High Court, the ED forwarded the materials to the Tamil Nadu DGP. He noted that the bank fraud case was quashed with the consent of the ED due to the absence of a predicate offense necessary for the ED to proceed further.
Arguments from DVAC and Other Parties
Representing the DVAC, senior advocate N R Elango submitted that the agency follows a standard procedure of conducting a preliminary inquiry in all complaints. Elango assured that the DVAC would conduct a proper probe and submit the report to the government for further action.
On behalf of Inbadurai, senior advocate V Raghavachari argued that the key issue to be decided is whether a preliminary inquiry is required before filing an FIR. Raghavachari referenced Supreme Court precedents, which categorically state that an FIR must be registered when the information shared discloses the commission of a cognizable offense, thereby supporting the need for immediate registration in this case.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring accountability and transparency in corruption investigations, particularly when substantial evidence is presented by central agencies like the ED.
