The Madras High Court has reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu State Government and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) challenging the recent searches carried out by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the TASMAC headquarters. The searches in question were conducted on March 6 and March 8 this year.
The division bench comprising Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar heard the matter extensively before reserving orders. The court had initially indicated in an earlier hearing that it would reserve the order, but later granted a special hearing to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, who appeared on behalf of TASMAC, to allow him to make his rejoinder submissions. Following the detailed arguments presented by Singh, the bench confirmed that it would pronounce its verdict on April 23.
During the course of the arguments, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh questioned the very basis of the Enforcement Directorate’s actions. He asserted that the ED lacked the authority to initiate any search or investigation in the absence of a First Information Report (FIR). Singh argued that the agency had prematurely decided to investigate the Excise Department in Tamil Nadu, particularly in light of the approaching state elections, and that the searches were merely an attempt to collect evidence to justify such an investigation.
FIR is the starting point. Authority of ED to enter into any case is dependent upon the FIR. In this case, the ED, sitting in its office, decided that it wants to go to Tamil Nadu and to the excise department. For that they want to check the offences against the officers... This is a unique case, ED decided it wants to investigate Excise Department and then starts the investigation. Usually it's the other way round, argued Singh.
Singh further submitted that the ED, in its written submissions, had falsely claimed to have seized cash from the TASMAC headquarters. He pointed out that no such claim was made either in the ED’s counter affidavit or in its press releases, and alleged that the statement was deliberately introduced later in the arguments to create prejudice against TASMAC.
The senior advocate also drew attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, in which the apex court clarified that the ED could proceed without a prior FIR, but only in cases involving attachment proceedings, not searches and seizures. Singh emphasized that the registration of an FIR was a mandatory requirement before any search could be conducted by the ED. Without it, the entire process, according to him, would lack jurisdiction and would automatically stand invalid.
"In the counter they say that Section 157 was complied with. But where's the FIR? Which is the FIR that says there's something rotten in the TASMAC which needs to be investigated. If there's no FIR, the whole action is without jurisdiction and then everything fails," Singh contended before the bench.
The court has reserved its order in the matter and is likely to pronounce its judgment on April 23.
Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 10348/ 2025
