Today, On 1st April, During a hearing on the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against the ED’s searches at TASMAC headquarters, the Madras High Court questioned the timing of the raids. Justice S.M. Subramaniam noted that even state agencies conduct searches, but Advocate General P.S. Raman clarified that the state does not conduct late-night raids like the ED. The court raised concerns over officials being prevented from leaving the premises during the searches. The matter continues to be reviewed by the bench.
During a hearing today regarding the Tamil Nadu government’s plea against the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) headquarters, the Madras High Court raised a question about the timing of the searches.
The bench, comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar, directed the inquiry to Advocate General PS Raman, who noted that the ED had conducted searches late at night, preventing officers from leaving the office premises.
Justice Subramaniam remarked that while even State agencies carry out raids and searches, Raman clarified that, unlike the ED, the State does not conduct searches during late-night hours.
This case was brought before the current bench after Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar recused themselves from hearing it last week. Prior to their recusal, the bench had advised the ED on March 20 not to continue its investigation until the next hearing.
They questioned whether the ED had the authority to detain all office staff based on information related to a few individuals and highlighted that although the ED claimed to possess sufficient evidence, TASMAC’s concerns centered on the lack of access to that information.
In its amended petition, the government requests that the court interpret the definition of “person” under Section 2(1)(s) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, to exclude authorities, regulators, or officers from either the Central or State governments.
Furthermore, the government seeks to limit the obligations of state officers under the PMLA to merely assisting ED officials as required by law.
The writ petition also calls for the central investigating agency to summon only those officers who are authorized and notified under Section 54 of the PMLA to assist in enforcement, specifically requesting that the ED only engage with officers under Section 54, rather than Sections 17 or 50. Section 17 grants the ED the power to conduct searches and seizures, while Section 50 allows the agency to summon individuals, order records, and take statements.
Additionally, the petition asks the court to direct the ED not to enter the premises of state-owned corporations and to declare the searches conducted from March 6 to 8, 2025, as illegal, unconstitutional, and invalid. A week after the raids, the state government and TASMAC had sought a court declaration that the ED’s actions were illegal, arguing that the agency lacked the authority to investigate government departments and entities without prior consent.
On March 25, the bench recused itself from the petitions, leading to speculation about possible pressure from Delhi.
Meanwhile, activist S. Muralidharan has filed an application to be included as a party in the case.
Additionally, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has initiated an investigation against TASMAC over allegations related to beer procurement. The CCI directed its Director General to investigate a complaint claiming that TASMAC restricts competition in the state’s beer market by favoring select brands.
The complaint alleges that TASMAC purchases and sells only a limited number of beer brands, thereby limiting access to others and discouraging competition, which may violate Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002, prohibiting abuse of dominant position.
The amended writ petition from the Tamil Nadu government, the activist’s application, and the CCI’s petition pose significant challenges for the DMK and its Excise Minister V. Senthil Balaji, who is currently out on bail in a cash-for-jobs scam case.