Madras High Court Division Bench to Review TN Govt's TASMAC Petition on April 1

Synopsis
The Madras High Court will hear the Tamil Nadu government's petition on April 1 regarding the legality of ED's search at TASMAC. The case involves claims of harassment and seeks to redefine roles under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Key Takeaways
- Madras High Court to hear TN government's petition.
- Challenges ED's search and seizure actions.
- Petition seeks to redefine roles under PMLA.
- Activist seeks to join proceedings against the TN government.
- Hearing scheduled for April 1.
Chennai, March 31 (NationPress) A Division Bench of the Madras High Court is set to review an amended writ petition submitted by the Tamil Nadu government on April 1. This petition contests the search and seizure operations conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) at the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) headquarters located in Chennai.
The searches took place between March 6 and March 8 of this year.
The Bench, consisting of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar, will also address two additional writ petitions filed by TASMAC, which demand a declaration that the ED's operations were unlawful.
Furthermore, the court will evaluate the Tamil Nadu government's plea to prevent the ED from allegedly intimidating its employees.
The state government revised its original petition following remarks from another Bench—comprised of Justices M.S. Ramesh and N. Senthilkumar—on March 20.
This previous Bench had raised questions regarding the feasibility of issuing a blanket order prohibiting the ED from conducting searches in Tamil Nadu without prior approval from the state.
After a preliminary hearing, the same Bench withdrew from the case.
In its revised petition, the state government requests the court to interpret the definition of 'person' under Section 2(1)(s) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, to exclude officials, regulators, or officers from both the Central and State governments.
The government also seeks a ruling that State officials' responsibilities under the PMLA should be confined to assisting ED personnel, in compliance with the law.
Moreover, the petition requests that the ED be mandated to engage only those officials specifically authorized under Section 54 of the PMLA and to seek assistance solely under that section.
It further aims to prevent the ED from exercising its authority under Sections 17 (search and seizure) and 50 (summons, document production, and statement recording) on premises owned by the State government or State-run corporations.
In the meantime, Chennai-based activist S. Muralidharan has submitted an impleading petition to join the proceedings. He plans to challenge the writ petitions submitted by the Tamil Nadu government and TASMAC.
The three writ petitions—two from TASMAC and one joint petition from the State government and TASMAC—along with the activist's impleading petition, have all been consolidated and scheduled for hearing on Tuesday before the Bench of Justices Subramaniam and Rajasekar.
aal/rad