"We Haven't Passed Any Orders Asking ED Not To Take Action": Madras High Court Says On Probe Against TASMAC

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar was responding to a query raised by the Special Public Prosecutor for ED, Advocate N Ramesh, asking the court if an earlier oral direction of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice N Senthilkumar would still continue. To this, the court said that it had not passed any orders.

The Advocate General objected to this and pointed out that the respondents had given an oral undertaking stating that they would not proceed with the investigation. He added that the oral undertaking was not until the next hearing but in whole. The bench however orally remarked that it had to go by whatever is written in the order

“We have to go by whatever is there in the order”, the bench said as it posted the case tomorrow for continuation of arguments.

When the case was taken up in the morning, the court had expressed its displeasure on being kept in the dark about the transfer petitions filed by the State and TASMAC in the Supreme Court. The court had criticised the State of insulting the High Court.

When the matter was taken up post-lunch, the counsels informed the court that since the Supreme Court was not inclined to grant the relief, the transfer petitions had been withdrawn. The TASMAC also informed the court that it would pursue the matter before the High Court. The AG, however sought time to get instructions on whether the State would be withdrawing the petition or whether it would continue to pursue the petition.

Making arguments for TASMAC, Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhari submitted that though arrests have not been made in the present case, the safeguards provided under Section 17 of the Act in connection with search and seizure had not been followed in the present case. Chaudhari emphasised the explanation of “reason to believe” as has been discussed by various decisions of the Supreme Court. He pointed out that the officer is bound to record the reasons in writing and communicate it.

“Reasonable belief cannot be on whims and fancies of the officers. Search can result in a great humiliation. You're scarred. You live in a society. If the search is not reasonable, your right under Article 21 is affected,” Chaudhari argued.

Chaudhari added that if the mandate provided under the Sections were not followed, and if there was an iota of doubt, the court's power of judicial review would kick in, and the court could look into the matter.