CHENNAI: In a significant blow to the Tamil Nadu government and its liquor retailing arm, the Madras High Court has dismissed petitions seeking to declare the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) search and seizure at TASMAC premises illegal, observing that the entity attempted to misuse human rights concerns to shield itself from investigation.
A division bench of Justices S M Subramaniam and K Rajasekar said the allegations against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) were “grave in nature” and required deeper investigation.
The court granted ED a free hand to proceed with the probe into possible generation of proceeds of crime and their laundering.
“It is without doubt that the prima facie allegations and complaints against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) are grave in nature. It definitely warrants deeper investigation,” the bench noted.
Disapproving of the argument that ED officials detained TASMAC employees till midnight, violating their human rights, the court observed, “The offence of money laundering is a crime against the people of our Nation. The arguments of officers being detained for hours during search and being sent home at odd hours when a search is in progress is inadequate and highly disproportional, when compared to the rights of millions of people of our Great Nation.”
The judges added, “It is the mandate of the Constitution to secure to all its citizens Economic Justice. And legislations such as PMLA serve this object by ensuring that offences which jeopardise our National economic growth is dealt with strictly by law.”
Responding to the petitioners' claims of political vendetta, the bench observed that courts cannot examine political motives. “The parties in power and in the opposition usually blame each other with political vendetta… the people would be the best judges and not the courts.”
The bench pointed out a “strong disconnection” between the averments and the relief sought in the petitions. It added, “It is imperative that a broader view of the issue needs to be taken at times, where the rights of people at large will be affected. It is without doubt that the prima facie allegations and complaints against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) are grave in nature. It definitely warrants deeper investigation.”
The court rejected TASMAC’s argument that the monetary threshold for offences listed under Part-B of the PMLA schedule would bar investigation. The bench said the claim was “ex facie inapplicable”.
Coming down heavily on TASMAC for accusing ED of violating human rights, the court said such a move challenges the very ethos of the criminal justice system.
“If this court accepts that such a search conducted by an investigating agency is harassment, then it can lead to a floodgate of litigations where each and every citizen of this country bound by the rule of law start alleging harassment on every procedure detailed under our criminal procedure system,” the bench said.
It further added, “It is unfortunate that women officers and employees are used as shields to prevent investigations from proceeding.”
Questioning the maintainability of the petitions, the bench said, “But it is unfortunate that in the present case, a mere search was conducted and the petitioners with complete whimsical arguments have approached this Court seeking for declaring the search itself as illegal. How can a procedure established by law be termed as harassment?”
It termed as “illogical and bereft of conscience” the argument that consent from the state government is a precondition for central agencies to conduct searches.
The court ruled that invoking federalism in a PMLA-related case concerning national economic offences is “untenable and unjustifiable”.
“The petitioners are embarking on a mission to defeat the very core of PMLA and the criminal justice system,” the court stated, adding, “Our Constitution is quasi-federal in nature but the traces of federalism are applied only for the benefit of the people and not to their detriment.”
It concluded that the state government should, in fact, be “open to allow” any investigating agency to root out offences affecting the state.
The court also dismissed impleading petitions filed by S Muralidharan, A Mohandoss, A Sridharan and S Karthick Ragunath.