Madras HC Stays DVAC Action Against Rajya Sabha MP Inbadurai, Cites Advocate General's Bar Undertaking

A Division Bench of the Madras High Court directed the State not to proceed against Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai and others until 23 June 2026, invoking an oral undertaking given by the then Advocate General on 28 April 2026 not to take coercive steps.

On 5 June 2026, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan directed State authorities to halt all further proceedings against Rajya Sabha MP I.S. Inbadurai and others until 23 June 2026. The direction came after counsel for one of the review applicants made a special mention alleging that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was taking coercive steps despite an oral assurance given by the then Advocate General at the previous hearing on 28 April 2026. The court found that the factual position — including the bar undertaking — was not disputed by any party present, and held that keeping further proceedings in abeyance until the already-fixed hearing date would cause no harm to the State.

The Dispute Before the Court

The proceedings before the bench involved a contempt petition, Cont.P.No.872 of 2026, filed by I.S. Inbadurai, a Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha from Tamil Nadu, against A.T. Durai Kumar, IPS, the In-Charge Director of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC). Two connected review applications — Rev.Aplwp.Crl.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 — were being heard alongside the contempt petition.

At the previous hearing on 28 April 2026, the court had recorded an undertaking by Senior Counsel for the contempt petitioner that the contempt proceedings would not be precipitated until the next date of hearing. The matter was then listed for 23 June 2026. Separately, the then Advocate General had stated across the bar that the State would also not take any coercive steps until that date.

The matter was taken up on 5 June 2026 on a special mention by counsel for the review applicant in Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.3 of 2026, who alleged that the State was initiating coercive action against the review applicant and others despite the court's order and the Advocate General's assurance.

What the State Said

Advocate General Vijay Narayan, who was present at the 5 June hearing, informed the bench that an FIR had already been registered. He did not produce a copy of the FIR before the court. He further stated that the State intended to withdraw Rev.Aplwp.Crl.No.2 of 2026, which had been filed by the State itself.

The Advocate General submitted that he was unaware of the statement made at the bar by the then Advocate General on 28 April 2026. His position was that since the court's written order of that date did not contain a stay of further proceedings, the State had proceeded on the basis of what the order actually said.

Senior Counsel for the contempt petitioner, in response, submitted that the contempt petitioner had honoured the undertaking recorded on 28 April 2026 and had not precipitated the contempt proceedings until the date of the special mention.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench noted that the factual position — including the oral statement made by the then Advocate General at the bar on 28 April 2026 that the State would not take coercive steps — was not disputed by any of the counsel present. The court treated this undisputed bar statement as a relevant circumstance in deciding whether to intervene.

The bench observed that since the hearing was already fixed for 23 June 2026, keeping further proceedings in abeyance until that date would cause no harm to the State. The court did not go into the merits of the contempt petition or the review applications at this stage.

The order was made by the Chief Justice on behalf of the Division Bench.

Outcome

The Division Bench directed that State authorities shall not undertake any further proceedings against any of the parties until the next date of hearing. All three matters — Cont.P.No.872 of 2026 and Rev.Aplwp.Crl.Nos.2 and 3 of 2026 — were listed for hearing on 23 June 2026, as had been directed on 28 April 2026.