The Madras High Court on Tuesday expressed strong displeasure at the Tamil Nadu government for not informing the court about its move to file a transfer petition before the Supreme Court. This petition sought to shift the case concerning the Enforcement Directorate (ED)'s searches at the TASMAC headquarters from the High Court to the Supreme Court.
A division bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekaran stated that while the State had every right to approach the Supreme Court, the court was disappointed that it had been kept in the dark during earlier proceedings.
“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?” the bench orally questioned during the hearing.
“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 judges noted.
The judges expressed concern over the State not informing the High Court during the previous hearing, even when the court was setting dates for final arguments. They remarked that the court had invested considerable time and energy into the case.
The court further asked whether the petition filed in the Supreme Court was for public interest or to protect certain TASMAC officials.
The bench made it clear that it would not delay proceedings based on the pending matter before the Supreme Court unless there was a stay order.
Background of the Case
The Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) and the State Government had challenged the ED’s searches conducted on March 6 and 8, 2025, at the TASMAC headquarters. The earlier bench had questioned the ED’s authority to detain the entire office and had asked if enough material evidence was available to justify such action.
During the earlier proceedings, the State and TASMAC argued that the ED’s searches were not carried out according to proper legal procedure. They alleged that the searches were conducted late at night and the staff was not even allowed to leave the premises. The court had also asked whether the State’s own police conduct searches in a similar manner.
“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 added.“We will take up the matter after lunch, at 2:15 pm. Let the petitioner counsel argue then,” the court directed.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Extends Interim Bail Protection For Kunal Kamra In FIR Over Satirical Video Till April 17
In the petition filed through the Additional Chief Secretary, the State contended that the ED was conducting a “roving enquiry” without possessing sufficient material evidence. It was further submitted that no “proceeds of crime” were recovered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and hence, there was no proof linking TASMAC to any offence under the PMLA.
The State also raised concerns over procedural lapses during the ED’s search. They claimed that officers were not provided with a copy of the search warrant but were forced to sign a statement acknowledging that they had read and understood the contents. According to the petition, this was a serious violation of the fundamental rights of TASMAC employees, including their right to life, liberty, and dignity.
The Enforcement Directorate, in its response, denied all the allegations. It maintained that all due legal procedures were followed during the search. The ED rejected the claim that the search was a “roving enquiry,” stating that multiple FIRs had been filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) against various TASMAC officials. Since these offences fall under the schedule of the PMLA, the ED said it had the authority to take cognisance of the matter.
The ED also clarified that there was no legal requirement to provide a copy of the search warrant and denied allegations that signatures were taken forcibly.
"There is no statutory or legal obligation to provide a copy of the search warrant," the ED argued in its reply.
Read Also:- Tamil Nadu Government Defends Online Gaming Restrictions Before Madras High Court
Notably, the transfer petition filed by the State Government is listed before the Chief Justice of India’s bench at the Supreme Court on the same day.
Case Details:
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd (TASMAC) v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: WP 10348 / 2025
