Back
Clears Path for PMLA Adjudication in TASMAC-linked Probe
In a development impacting the ongoing investigation into the case, the has opted to close a filed by film producer Akash Baskaran against the . The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan, ruled that the appropriate venue for contesting the legality of under the lies with the appellate authorities.
Background: The Search Controversy The dispute traces back to , when the ED conducted search operations across the residences and offices of several individuals, including Baskaran, as part of an investigation into financial irregularities linked to TASMAC. Baskaran sought to quash these proceedings, alleging a lack of "reason to believe" as required under , maintaining he was neither an employee nor an official of the corporation, and was thus unconnected to the alleged financial crimes.
The situation further escalated when the ED issued to the petitioner, ignoring an earlier stay order granted by the High Court in . This prompted the filing of a and subsequent court interventions, including an apology from ED officials regarding .
The Arguments in Court The petitioner’s counsel, Senior Advocate , argued that the searches were conducted without a valid legal basis, citing non-compliance with the procedural mandates of the PMLA. Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate, represented by Additional Solicitor General , highlighted that the had already confirmed the , providing a definitive process for challenge.
Crucially, the ED informed the court that the notice previously issued by the —which had been the subject of contention—would be withdrawn and that the department would proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
A Consistent Judicial Approach The Court observed that a similar petition filed by P.R. Rajesh Kumar, challenging the same , had already been disposed of by the bench. In that instance, the Court had declined to delve into the validity of the searches, instead relegating the petitioner to the . Adopting parity of treatment, the bench held that it was unnecessary to adjudicate the same issues again.
Key Observations The judgment underscores the limitations of the High Court in interfering with ongoing PMLA proceedings where an alternative statutory forum is available. The bench, in its order, noted:
-
"It is unnecessary at this stage to go into the issue of legality and validity of the ."
-
"We deem it fit that the same issue need not be adjudicated once again in this , but leave it open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the Appellate Tribunal."
-
"Considering the fact that the connected ... has been closed, relegating the party to raise all the issues before the Appellate Authority... we deem it fit to close the ."
The Road Ahead By closing the petition, the Court has effectively shifted the burden of the dispute to the Appellate Tribunal. The practical effect of this ruling—combined with the ED’s undertaking to withdraw contested notices—is that the petitioner now has a clear path to challenge both the search and the subsequent attachment of his properties in the designated administrative forum. For future cases, the ruling reaffirms the principle that high-level judicial intervention under remains the exception, not the rule, when are available under the PMLA framework.
