Madras High Court Cracks Whip: FIR Must Follow ED's Bombshell Evidence in Massive Recruitment Scam

In a stern rebuke to procedural delays, the Madras High Court , led by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan, has mandated the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to register an FIR without further ado. The order stems from incriminating materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) , exposing alleged bribery in Tamil Nadu's Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MAWS) Department recruitments. The bench dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) but allowed a criminal writ by Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai, prioritizing swift action on credible evidence over endless probes.

The Job Racket Unearthed: Bribes, Brothers, and Rs 10 Notes

The saga began with a 2025 MAWS notification for 2,538 posts like Assistant Engineers and Junior Engineers. Appointments followed in July 2025 amid whispers of foul play. ED raids on K.N. Ravichandran—brother of MAWS Minister K.N. Nehru—in a separate bank fraud case (later quashed) yielded a treasure trove: 232 pages of WhatsApp chats, call letters, photos of cash-stuffed bags, and Rs 10 note-marked exam papers used to track bribes of Rs 25-35 lakh per post.

Over 150 candidates allegedly secured jobs via this network involving the minister's brothers (Ravichandran and Manivannan), associates, and officials. Hawala routed crores, with specifics like Rs 6.5 crore and Rs 11.4 crore transactions flagged. ED's October 27, 2025 , letter to Tamil Nadu DGP triggered the petitions: PIL by K. Athinarayanan urging police action, and Inbadurai's plea for FIR registration per his December 13 representation.

Petitioners Push for Probe, State Plays Preliminary Card

Petitioners, backed by Senior Counsels V. Raghavachari and Niranjan S. Kumar , hammered home Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP (2014): FIR mandatory on cognizable offence disclosure—no credibility test at threshold. ED's evidence, they argued, screamed corruption under PC Act , with no room for delay. Special PP for ED, N. Ramesh , invoked Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2023), stressing police obligation on PMLA-shared info.

The State, via AG P.S. Raman , countered with Vigilance Manual and P. Sirajuddin (1970), claiming prior sanction under PC Act Section 17A granted January 12, 2026 , justified ongoing DVAC enquiry since December 12 . DGP's counsel Vikram Choudhary questioned locus standi , citing BNSS Section 173(3) for 14-day prelims. DVAC's N.R. Elango defended six-month timelines per manual. They dismissed ED materials as tainted post-quash.

Judicial Dissection: No Hide-and-Seek Behind Enquiries

The bench dissected precedents meticulously. Lalita Kumari 's core: FIR if info discloses cognizable offence ; prelims only for ambiguity, capped at 14 days under BNSS 173(3). Corruption isn't auto-prelim turf— State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy ( 2025 ) and Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma clarified no mandatory pre-FIR probe if credible source info exists.

PMLA Section 66(2) sealed it: ED's opinion-based share obliges FIR ( Vijay Madanlal Choudhary , paras 151, 163). Court rejected quash-link arguments—recruitment evidence stood independent. PIL petitioner Athinarayanan's criminal history torpedoed his bona fides ; Inbadurai's MP status and ED backing passed muster.

Key Observations

"The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code , if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation." (Echoing Lalita Kumari)

"On receipt of such information [under PMLA 66(2)], the jurisdictional police would be obliged to register a case by way of FIR if it is a cognizable offence ." (From Vijay Madanlal Choudhary)

"Preliminary inquiry is not sine qua non for registering a case against a public servant who is accused of corruption... determination... will vary according to the facts." (State of Karnataka v. T.N. Sudhakar Reddy)

"When incriminating materials have been seized by the Enforcement Directorate... the State has been embarking upon a mini-trial."

Verdict Delivers Justice Punch: FIR Now, Probe Next

"The second respondent/Vigilance Department is directed to forthwith register a case on the information shared by the Enforcement Directorate on 27.10. 2025 under Section 66(2) of the Act and conduct a detailed expeditious investigation." PIL dismissed; criminal writ disposed.

Implications ripple wide: Recruited candidates (in service 6+ months) face uncertainty if scam proven. No more stalling ED intel with "enquiries"—sets precedent against shielding influential figures. Same bench's recent PMK symbol ruling underscores aversion to political meddling in electoral probes, hinting at broader anti-corruption vigilance amid Tamil Nadu's poll buzz.

This ruling fortifies Lalita Kumari in PMLA context, ensuring scams don't languish in limbo.