In a striking courtroom exchange, the Madras High Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s expanding interpretation of its powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly its authority to seal locked premises during a search. The bench, presided over by Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan, observed that it is not the law but the ED officials themselves who appear to be “evolving” with each case.
In a sharp and unusually candid courtroom critique, the Madras High Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) interpretation of its powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), spotlighting growing concerns about executive overreach.
Hearing a batch of writ petitions on Tuesday filed by film producer Akash Baskaran and his associate Vikram Ravindran, Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan raised fundamental questions about the ED’s legal authority to “seal” premises found locked during search operations. The petitions were filed following an ED attempt to search a residential flat in Poes Garden and a film office in Semmenchery, both linked to Ravindran and Baskaran, in connection with the TASMAC liquor scam probe.
The judge remarked pointedly:
“Courts often say the PMLA is an evolving law. But it appears that it is the ED officials who are evolving day by day by expanding their powers.”
What Is a Seal, What Is a Notice?
While the ED denied sealing the premises, its action, pasting notices instructing occupants not to open the premises without ED permission, sparked legal debate. “Even assuming the language in the notice does not amount to sealing, where is your authority to prevent someone from entering their own home or office?” asked Justice Lakshminarayanan.
He emphasized the psychological effect of such official notices:
“No sane person would defy a public authority’s notice. The implication is clear, they feel barred.”
The ED’s Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh argued that under Section 17 of the PMLA, officers have the authority to break open locks to conduct searches, but chose a less “drastic” route out of caution. Still, the bench pushed back, demanding clarity on where the ED’s restraint ends and its assertion of control begins, especially in scenarios involving private property and due process.
FCRF x CERT-In Roll Out National Cyber Crisis Management Course to Prepare India’s Digital Defenders
Backdrop: TASMAC Scam and a Shadow of Suspicion
The controversy is the latest development in the TASMAC (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) liquor licensing and sales fraud probe, which the ED has been investigating under money laundering charges. Distillery companies across the state are under scrutiny, and the ED is allegedly acting on “credible information” pointing to materials in possession of Baskaran and Ravindran.
Despite this, the SPP confirmed that neither of the petitioners is officially an accused yet. The ED is still in the evidence-collection phase, and the court was told that the search was driven by intelligence inputs, not arrest mandates.
Justice Ramesh, however, reminded the agency that such preemptive actions without judicial oversight or due caution could verge on infringement of constitutional rights. The bench has granted the ED time until Wednesday (June 18) to submit case records for judicial review.
Algoritha: The Most Trusted Name in BFSI Investigations and DFIR Services
Judicial Tone Signals Wider Friction
This case encapsulates an increasingly visible tension between the judiciary and investigative agencies in India. The PMLA, often described as draconian by critics, grants sweeping powers to the ED, but with minimal safeguards.
The judiciary has, in recent times, grown more vocal in demanding transparency, proportionality, and adherence to constitutional boundaries. The Madras High Court’s observation that “ED officials are evolving” is a warning signal about the unchecked growth of administrative discretion.
As the court resumes hearing today, all eyes will be on whether it sets clear procedural guardrails or lets ED’s interpretation hold sway. Either way, the case has reignited critical discussions on accountability, personal liberty, and the balance of power in Indian democracy.