'Why Insult HC?' : Madras High Court Expresses Displeasure With TN Govt's Plea To Transfer ED-TASMAC Case From HC

The Madras High Court on Tuesday orally criticised the Tamil Nadu government for not informing it that- State has moved a petition seeking transfer of plea challenging the searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate at the TASMAC headquarters, to the Supreme Court.While the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran recognized that State has right to file such a petition, it was upset about being kept in the dark. It thus asked the State what prevented it from informing the court about its intention to file such a transfer petition in the previous hearing, when the court was fixing the dates for the final hearing. "It was listed with your consent. Why was this petition filed by the State? Why didn't you tell us that you were intending to approach the Supreme Court? Why did you go behind our back? Even when you sought a passover in the morning, you didn't tell us about the transfer petition. There are so many matters pending here. We're spending so much time for these matters. Why are you disrespecting and insulting the High Court?" the bench orally asked. The court also questioned the State's intention of filing the petition, commenting whether the petition was filed for the benefit of some officials in TASMAC."Is this petition filed for public good or for the benefit of some officials of TASMAC? You've given a commitment to this court. Honour the commitment," the court added. The court also said that it would not wait for the hearing in the Supreme Court to get over as long as there was no stay order from the Supreme Court. The court thus said that it would take up the matter post noon, at 2:15 pm and asked the petitioner counsel to argue at that time. The TASMAC and State Government had approached the High Court challenging the search conducted by the Enforcment Directorate at the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and 8 this year. A previous bench had, on March 20, not to proceed with the investigation till the next hearing. The bench had wondered if the ED had the power to detain the entire office based on materials available against some persons. It had also pointed out that while the ED argued that it had enough materials, the TASMAC's grievance was that such materials were not made available to them. Post this, the bench, however recused from the hearing and the matter was subsequently posted before the current bench. In the previous hearing, while the State and TASMAC submitted that the ED searches was not as per procedure and that the searches was conducted late in the night, not even allowing the officers to leave the office premises, the bench had orally asked the Government if its own police authorities were not conducting similar searches.In its plea filed through the Additional Chief Secretary, the State argued that the ED was conducting a roving enquiry without having materials. It was submitted that even after conducting searches for prolonged hours, ED was unable to recover any “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA and thus there was no material to show that TASMAC was involved in the commission of offences under the PMLA.It was submitted that the search itself was without following due procedure as the authorities were not given a copy of the search warrant but were forced to acknowledge of having read and understood the content of the warrant/memo. It was submitted that the search was conducted in blatant disregard to the fundamental rights of life liberty and dignity of the TASMAC employees.In its reply, ED denied all the allegations and submitted that all due procedures were followed at the time of search. ED also denied the allegation that the search was a “roving enquiry” and submitted that multiple FIRs were registered by the DVAC against various officers/staff/employees of TASMAC and since the offences involved were scheduled offence under the PMLA, the agency had taken cognisance.The ED also denied the allegation that the signatures of the officers in the search warrant were taken forcefully. It also submitted that there was no statutory or other obligation to provide a copy of the search warrant.Significant to note that the transfer petition is listed before the CJI bench at Supreme Court today.Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of EnforcementCase No: WP 10348/ 2025

'Why Insult HC?' : Madras High Court Expresses Displeasure With TN Govt's Plea To Transfer ED-TASMAC Case From HC

Upasana Sajeev

Tags