ED Conducting Roving Inquiry Because Of Upcoming Elections : TASMAC To Madras High Court

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for TASMAC was making submissions before the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekaran.

“I'll tell you how the ED works. The Tamil Nadu election is next year. So they'll start this year. Look up old FIRs and start roving and fishing inquiry. They are taking up matters to some kind of result to tarnish the image of people involved in the Election. Why are they suddenly dreaming that the Tamil Nadu excise department is corrupt?” Singh argued.

Vikas argued that the ED's powers were circumscribed by law as it could conduct search and seizure only upon the existence of a scheduled offence, which was a pre-requisite under the Act. He argued that the ED did not have original jurisdiction to investigate a case and its jurisdiction would start only if an offence, which is a scheduled offence under the PMLA, is committed. Singh emphasised that the ED could not start the investigation in the “hope” that there may be an FIR.

“Please see the danger. There are 29 states in the country. In every state, wherever there is an opposition party in governance, ED will pick up any ministry and start a roving enquiry? If they don't have the jurisdiction to do it in an opposition state, they don't have a jurisdiction to do it in the BJP rules state also. It's a different matter that they don't do it in BJP ruled state and only in select states,” Singh argued.

Singh also contended that by withholding information regarding the FIR and the ECIR, the State and TASMAC were unable to make effective representation as they were unable of the charges against them.

“We're making submissions blindfolded because we don't know what are the offences against me, what are the facts against me. It is not possible for us to argue in this matter without them producing the FIR. It should be allowed on that ground itself that there's no FIR in the eyes of law. The court had asked them to produce FIRs by they haven't,” Singh said.

Singh further submitted that the present case was a unique one as there was no FIR in the present case. He submitted that in all the cases till now, there was no dispute about the FIR and the FIR meeting the threshold for PMLA proceeding. However, he submitted that in the present case, there was no FIR and the ED itself was not willing to disclose the details of the FIR.

Singh also submitted that, unlike attachment, which could be done by the ED without the insistence of a FIR, search and seizure could be carried out by the ED only in the presence of an FIR.

Making submissions for the State, Advocate General PS Raman said that the TASMAC had not been named in any of the FIRs. He pointed out that while the corporation had not said it wouldn't cooperate, the TASMAC had entered into the office and conducted searches, even though there was no materials. Raman also pointed out that ED had not sent a single communication to the State officials informing it of the actions.

“It is very much an ego point. The Home secretary, DGP, not even the provisional excise commissioner has been given any letter by the ED on what happened. Let them produce one communication to the government or to the TASMAC,” Raman said.

While winding up the submissions for the day, the court has directed the ED to produce details of the FIRs registered by the State against TASMAC or its officials based on which ED had started its probe.

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

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025