Madras High Court: no right to a hearing before a court directs that an FIR be registered

The Madras High Court, in a common order disposing of a contempt petition and two review applications arising from its earlier direction to the State's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Directorate to register and investigate a case, held that a person named in material gathered by an investigating agency has no right to a hearing before a court directs that a case be registered against him. Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan rejected the argument that a person named as a respondent in the writ petition was denied natural justice because he received notice of the proceeding only shortly before orders were reserved. Relying on the Supreme Court's rulings in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Bench held that the rule of audi alteram partem does not apply at the stage of directing registration of a case and investigation, because such a direction decides nobody's guilt and is only a preliminary step; the person named will have a full opportunity to contest the material once the investigation reaches him.

The Court also held that Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 403 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which bar a criminal court from reviewing its own judgment, do not bar a High Court's writ jurisdiction from reviewing its own order under its own Writ Rules framed under Article 225 of the Constitution. The review applications were dismissed and the contempt petition was closed after the State registered the case.