The Madras High Court on August 6 imposed a total fine of ₹30,000 on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for failing to file counter affidavits in time in connection with three petitions filed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The petitions were filed by film producer Akash Bhaskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran, challenging the ED's search operations conducted at their residence and office premises.
The Division Bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice V. Laksminarayanan observed that the court had earlier provided the Directorate a final opportunity to submit its counter affidavits. However, when the Special Public Prosecutor sought further time during the latest hearing, the bench agreed but decided to impose a penalty.
Read Also:-Tamil Nadu Govt Must Pay ₹25 Lakh More to Family of Man Killed in Police Custody: Madras HC
“We are inclined to permit additional time but only upon imposing a fine,” the court remarked.
Accordingly, the bench imposed a fine of ₹10,000 in each of the three petitions and granted a further two weeks' time to the ED to submit the counter affidavits.
The petitioners had approached the court stating that their residential and office premises were sealed by the ED during the search operations, as the properties were locked at the time. The High Court had earlier directed the ED to produce the documents based on which it had initiated its action. Upon review of the documents, the court noted that the authorisation for conducting the searches was prima facie without jurisdiction.
“There was no incriminating material available on record to justify the search and seizure,” the court observed.
It was also noted that the materials submitted by the ED lacked any reasonable grounds or information that could justify the enforcement action against the petitioners. The court had, in a prior hearing, stayed all proceedings initiated by the Directorate against them.
During the hearing, the petitioners submitted that they had no links to the corruption-related TASMAC case. The only material cited by the ED was that one of the petitioner's mobile numbers was saved in the phone of the Managing Director of TASMAC. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence of any call records or WhatsApp messages between them and persons connected to the case.
On behalf of the ED, Special Prosecutor N. Ramesh explained that the Directorate required more time to file a detailed and comprehensive response, especially as several officers involved in the case had been transferred. However, the court did not accept this as a valid reason for the continued delay.
Read Also:-Madras High Court Commends Tamil Nadu’s Policy for Transgender and Intersex Persons
This cannot be a justification for repeated non-compliance. The Directorate had already been granted a final opportunity, the court said.
Case Title: Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director
Case No: WP Crl 71 of 2025