Today, On 21st April, The Madras High Court is set to deliver its verdict on April 23 in the case between TASMAC and the Enforcement Directorate (ED).TASMAC and the Tamil Nadu government had filed petitions challenging the ED raids conducted at the TASMAC head office between March 6 and March 8.
The Madras High Court announced that it will deliver its verdict on April 23 regarding the case filed by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) against the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) raids.
Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar reserved their judgment after Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, representing TASMAC, argued that the ED lacked jurisdiction to operate in Tamil Nadu and that their actions at TASMAC’s headquarters demonstrated arbitrariness, high-handedness, non-application of mind, and a complete abuse of power.
Also Read: Madras High Court: “TASMAC Claims ED Crossed Jurisdiction Boundaries, Violating PMLA”
Singh stated,
“In a normal investigation, it should be the other way round. There is a case registered, you start investigation on that. Here, it is opposite. ED decides, they collect FIRs and then start investigation. This is a unique case where ED does not even confirm when FIR brings about predicate offence. This is why rejoinder is important, will show how bogus this case is… These FIRs are at district manager level, nothing to do with head office. How does him charging Rs.500 extra (lead to raid at TASMAC head office)? … These are depot managers, too small a fry … The jurisdiction for ED to step in is not there in this case. I am not for once trying to argue that lordships should get into merits of the allegations. I am only saying the facts of this case is so brazen, that ED had no jurisdiction to enter the State of Tamil Nadu,”
The case centers on raids conducted by the ED from March 6 to March 8, prompted by allegations that TASMAC officials were involved in overpricing liquor bottles, manipulating tenders, and engaging in bribery, resulting in financial irregularities exceeding Rs.1,000 crores.
The ED alleged money laundering based on approximately 41-46 first information reports (FIRs) filed by either the State government or TASMAC against its officials over the years. The DMK-led State government and TASMAC accused the ED of exceeding its authority and described the March raids as illegal.
Also Read: Tamil Nadu Withdraws Supreme Court Plea to Transfer ED-TASMAC Case
They challenged the legality of the raids in the Madras High Court, claiming that ED officials harassed TASMAC employees during the operations, detaining them under the pretext of interrogation or search and seizure for over 60 hours.
The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, strongly denied any claims of harassment and insisted that the search operations were justified to uncover money laundering activities.
Initially, the case was heard by Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar, who, on March 20, verbally advised the ED to refrain from further coercive actions for the time being. This Bench expressed concern over allegations that TASMAC officials were held at the office for more than 60 hours.
However, shortly after, Justices Ramesh and Senthilkumar recused themselves from the case, leading to the matter being taken up by Justices Subramaniam and Rajasekar. The case briefly reached the Supreme Court when Tamil Nadu sought to transfer it there following the recusal, but the State withdrew the plea after the Supreme Court indicated it was unlikely to permit the transfer.
Other legal representatives included Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhary (for TASMAC) and Advocate General PS Raman for the State of Tamil Nadu.