Madras High Court Dismisses DMK MP's Plea Seeking Registration Of ED Case Against 9 AIADMK Leaders
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 20) dismissed a batch of pleas filed by DMK MP R Girirajan, seeking registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against nine leaders of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in connection with the corruption and disproportionate assets case against them. The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G...
The Madras High Court on Monday (April 20) dismissed a batch of pleas filed by DMK MP R Girirajan, seeking registration of an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against nine leaders of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) in connection with the corruption and disproportionate assets case against them.
The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed the plea after hearing Senior Advocate NR Elango for Girirajan and Special Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate, N Ramesh. A detailed order is awaited.
The MP from Rajya Sabha had sought registration of an ED case against SP Velumani, C Vijayabhaskar, MR Vijayabhaskar, P Thangamani, R Kamaraj, KP Anbalagan, KC Veeramani, R Elangovan, and Sathyanarayanan.
Girirajan argued that during their tenure as Ministers from 2016-2021, various complaints and materials had emerged indicating large-scale financial irregularities and the generation of illicit wealth. It was argued that the acts of the former Ministers constitute scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other offences under the IPC, such as criminal misconduct by a public servant, criminal conspiracy and cheating.
Girirajan submitted that these illegal gains would constitute “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA. It was submitted that wherever proceeds of crime are generated from scheduled offences, the ED is empowered to register an ECIR, investigate the offence of money laundering and trace, attach and confiscate tainted assets.
When the cases were taken up on Monday, Senior Advocate NR Elango argued that cases were registered against the former Ministers for corruption or disproportionate assets, but the ED had not proceeded against them under the PMLA. He also argued that the Supreme Court, in its judgments, has clearly stated that once the proceeds of crime is identified, the ED is duty-bound to register an ECIR.
Elango argued that the ED was not proceeding against “selected persons” since they had become part of an alliance with the ruling party at the Centre. He further submitted that under the PMLA, there was no option to file a private complaint. Thus, arguing that there was no other alternative remedy, Elango urged the court to direct registration of the ED case.
Countering the submissions, Advocate N Ramesh raised four-fold objections to the plea. Firstly, Ramesh argued that the plea was not maintainable since a mandamus could not be issued directing registration of an ED case. Secondly, Ramesh argued that though the plea was filed as a mandamus, no representation had been given to the department before the filing of the present plea.
Thirdly, Ramesh argued that the plea was filed by a sitting MP from the ruling party in the State. Ramesh pointed out that the fifth respondent in all the pleas is the opposition party in the State, which would show that the plea was politically motivated, in which ED was being dragged. Ramesh further argued that a third party could not ask for the registration of an ECIR. In the present case, Ramesh argued that the petitioner was neither the complainant, nor the witness, nor the affected party. He thus submitted that the present plea was not a public interest litigation and should not be treated as one.
Lastly, Ramesh argued that the ECIR was not a public document and any disclosure about the ECIR would affect the investigation and the privacy of persons involved. Thus, Ramesh submitted that the ED would refrain from making any comment on the ECIR against the nine persons.
To the allegations of political vendetta, Elango submitted that merely because the plea was filed by a person belonging to the opposite party, it could not be termed as political vendetta, and the court should consider the case if there were merits. With respect to giving prior representation to the ED, Elango argued that the provisions of PMLA were different from the CrPC. Elango pointed out that while CrPC required going to the police and filing a complaint and then approaching the court in case of inaction, no such provision was available in the PMLA.
After hearing the parties, the court dismissed the plea.
Case Title: R Girirajan v The State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 171
Case No: WP Crl 856 of 2026