Madras High Court Reserves Orders On Pleas Challenging ED Search At TASMAC Headquarters, Verdict Likely On April 23

The Madras High Court has reserved orders on pleas filed by the State Government and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation challenging the recent searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate on the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8. 

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar reserved the orders today after hearing Senior Advocate Vikas Singh for TASMAC. In the previous hearing itself the court had said that it would reserve the orders but gave a special hearing to Singh, allowing him to argue on the rejoinder. After hearing the senior advocate, the bench said it would pass orders on April 23rd.

While making submissions today, Singh argued that the ED did not have any authority to enter into the case without registration of an FIR. He said that in the present case, in view of the upcoming Tamil Nadu elections, ED had already made up its mind to investigate the Excise Department and for that, they were carrying out the search to find materials. 

"FIR is the starting point. Authority of ED to enter into any case is dependent upon the FIR. In this case, the ED, sitting in its office, decided that it wants to go to Tamil Nadu and to the excise department. For that they want to check the offences against the officers.....This is a unique case, ED decided it wants to investigate Excise Department and then starts the investigation. Usually it's the other way round," Singh argued.

Singh also argued that it its written arguments, the ED had falsely claimed that it had seized cash from the TASMAC headquarters when no such statement had been made in the counter or the press release by the ED. He added that the statement was made only to cause prejudice against TASMAC.

Singh also argued that while the Supreme Court, in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case, allowed the ED to proceed without registering the case, this window was applicable only to attachment proceedings and not to search and seizure. He stressed that for a search, registration of an FIR was a prerequisite. He added that if there was no FIR, the whole action would be without jurisdiction and would be vitiated. 

"In the counter they say that Section 157 was complied with. But where's the FIR? Which is the FIR that says there's something rotten in the the TASMAC which needs to be investigated. If there's no FIR, the whole action is without jurisdiction and then everything fails," Singh said. 

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025