Madras High Court Stays Investigation Against Fitness Centre Owner In TASMAC Corruption Case Involving Senthil Balaji

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan ordered a stay to balance the rights and protect the interest of the petitioner.

“In such view of the matter, to balance the rights and protect the interest, we deem it fit to pass an interim order staying all further proceedings and investigation in V&AC Headquarters Crime No.05 of 2026, dated 28.07.2026, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, pending disposal of this writ petition,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Ramesh, who was an accused in the case registered by the DVAC.

It may be noted that on July 28, the DVAC had booked Senthil Balaji and others, alleging large-scale irregularities in the functioning of TASMAC between 2021 and 2025, while Balaji was holding the office of Minister for Electricity and Prohibition & Excise in Tamil Nadu.

The FIR has been registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 409, 109, and 420 of the IPC, Sections 61(2), 201, and 316(5) of the BNS, and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(a)and Section 7(c) read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

According to the prosecution, while holding the post of Minister, Balaji had entered into criminal conspiracy with six others, including private individuals, distillery and brewery companies, transport firms, bottling firms and unknown public servants who were working in TASMAC, and committed criminal breach of trust, framed incorrect documents, and misappropriated money, thereby laundering huge illicit money and causing loss to the public exchequer.

It may be noted that the High Court had earlier denied anticipatory bail to Senthil Balaji in connection with the case. Later, the Supreme Court granted relief to the former Minister by staying his arrest and asking him to cooperate with the investigation. 

Ramesh submitted that he was running a fitness centre in Karur and was not named as an accused in the initial FIR. He argued that the DVAC had still treated him as 8^th accused in the case, arrested him on July 30, and he was remanded to judicial custody on July 31. He argued that his arrest was immediately after the court gave him bail in connection with an MLA poaching case, which would show that the arrest was made with an intent to defeat the purpose of bail, rather than to investigate the offence.

He also argued that the entire DVAC case was registered based on a counter affidavit filed by the Directorate of Enforcement before the Supreme Court, in a case filed by the State challenging the search and seizure that happened in TASMAC. He argued that the same Home Department, which had called the ED action was unlawful, has now used the same materials as a foundation for registering the FIR, which amounts to colourable exercise of power that overreaches the pending proceedings and the protective orders of the Supreme Court.

The petitioner had also sought to declare that Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as ultravires as it cannot be treated as an independent self-contained power of arrest that overrides the safeguards under Sections 35, 36, 47, 48 and 62 of the BNSS.

The Union Government argued that the petitioner could not challenge the merits of the FIR in a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution and the remedy was elsewhere when the investigation by the statutory authorities was within jurisdiction.

The DVAC argued that the plea to declare Section 17 as ultavires was not maintainable since both PC Act and BNSS were central statutes and one could not be declared as ultra vires the other. He also argued that the case was not registered solely on the counter of the ED, but there were other materials.

The State Government submitted that it had taken cue from the materials placed before the Supreme Court and verified them with the corroborative documents. It was argued that the case involved financial transactions running to hundreds of crores, and grave allegations that warrant full investigation.

After considering the materials, the court was inclined to stay the investigation as against the present petitioner.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. V. Ragavachari, Senior Counsel for Ms. Pavitra Sankar S.

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. AR. L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General asst by Mr. B. Rabu Manohar, SCGC, Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Senior Counsel, asst by Mr. M. Guruprasad, State Govt Pleader, Mr. John Sathyan, State Public Prosecutor asst by Mr. Arun Anbumani, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Ramesh v The Union of India and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 388

Case No: WP Crl.No.2077 of 2026