“ED Officers Must Dispel Notion That They're Law Unto Themselves”: TASMAC Argues In Madras High Court Against ED Raid

“This practice (of summoning officers at unearthly hours) has to be curbed. They have to dispel the notion that they are law unto themselves,” Chaudhari said.

Chaudhari was making arguments before the bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar. Though the State and TASMAC had filed petitions in the Supreme Court to transfer the case from the Madras High Court, these petitions were withdrawn after the Apex Court was not inclined to grant the relief. Meanwhile, the High Court had also expressed its displeasure on being kept in the dark about the transfer petitions.

When the matter was taken up today, Chaudhari continued his submissions for TASMAC. Emphasising the need to follow the parameters under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Chaudhari argued that the authorities under the Act could not prosecute someone on the notion or assumption that a scheduled offence has been conducted. Chaudhari further submitted that the court had to see whether the safeguards had been implemented in spirit and substance and whether the action was taken based on materials or was it a mere roving enquiry.

“If the safeguards are violated, actions have been provided under the Act. If it was not essential, it would have been struck down. So the court has to see whether these safeguards are to be implemented in spirit and substance. Also, what would be the yardstick to judge whether action is based in material data or whether its roving enquiry,” Chaudhari argued.

Chaudhari also criticised the ED for concealing the data and not providing the 'reasons to believe' to the officers concerned.

“Their conduct is more concealing than revealing. They're not telling us what's there in the ECIR. They're not telling us for what purpose they have come. Nothing has been said in the counter also. But they have issued a press conference after this which is scathing. What's the business of this officer saying everything is confidential but then sharing the information with the press. If this is not malicious exercise, then what is? Transparency is important,” Chaudhari argued.

Chaudhari added that in the present case, as per the press release of the ED, there was FIR registered against some employees of TASMAC. Chaudhari submitted that ED seemed to have conducted searches at TASMAC premises to get details of the scheduled offence. He added that ED could have also chosen to seek the assistance of the officers under Section 54 of the Act but the agency chose to search the premises under Section 17 instead.

“What they've done is, they've entered the premises and taken data. It appears that they wanted to get details of the scheduled offence. So the question is whether Section 54 would have sufficed. Or whether it curtailed an action under Section 17?” Chaudhari questioned.

Chaudhari also informed the court that no female officers were present from ED's side while conducting searches. Taking the court through the CCTV footage details, Chaudhari pointed out that the officers were not allowed to leave till late night. Chaudhari thus continued to argue that the fundamental right of the employees included their right to sleep and their right to privacy.

Case Title: Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd TASMAC v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case No: WP 10348/ 2025