The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has strongly refuted the allegations of harassment made by the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) in connection with the search operation conducted at its headquarters. During the hearing before the Madras High Court on Thursday, the ED described the allegations as an afterthought raised only to create grounds in the ongoing legal battle.
The matter was heard by a division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar, who were dealing with the plea filed by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC, challenging the ED’s search. Appearing for the ED, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju argued that the claims of harassment were introduced for the first time in the present petition and had not been raised at the time of the search.
"The Panchnama, which was duly signed and accepted by the officials of TASMAC, clearly records that the officers were allowed to go home during the night hours and that the search proceedings were paused at night," Raju submitted before the bench.
He further emphasized, This Panchnama has been signed by ED officials. They have not made any endorsement that officers were not allowed to go home. They've accepted this Panchnama. They're even relying on these panchnama. This contention of harassment is raised as an afterthought only for creating a case in the present matter.
Raju highlighted that the Panchnama was not signed by junior or ordinary employees but by senior officers of TASMAC. He asserted that if there had been any pressure or compulsion, the officers would have recorded their objection at that stage rather than remaining silent.
In addition to addressing the harassment claims, Raju pointed out that the petitioners had chosen to approach the court directly instead of following the prescribed statutory route. According to him, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) provides for the matter to be placed before the adjudicating authority, which has the responsibility to examine the legality of the search and whether the information was forwarded to the adjudicating authority within a reasonable time as mandated under Section 17(2) of the PMLA.
He informed the court that the delay in forwarding the information had a valid and reasonable explanation and argued that there was no mala fide intention behind the delay.
During the course of the hearing, the Madras High Court also reviewed the ‘reasons to believe’ document that had been submitted by the Enforcement Directorate in a sealed cover. After examining the document, the court returned it to the Special Public Prosecutor without any comments.
As the arguments concluded for the day, the bench remarked, We're reserving judgment. We can't let it prolong. We'll give you time till Monday to file written submissions. The problem is, many other people are going on and filing and disturbing. We're reserving but we'll permit you if you want to say anything more.
The bench has allowed Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for TASMAC, to present his rejoinder arguments on Monday before passing the final order.
The case, titled Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) v. Directorate of Enforcement and registered under WP No. 10348 of 2025, remains reserved for further submissions.
