The Madras High Court on Wednesday upheld the validity of raids conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from March 6 to March 8 at the headquarters of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC)..A Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar dismissed the petitions filed by TASMAC and the State government challenging the legality of ED raids. The ED is at liberty to continue its probe under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Court added. The Court also rejected the argument by the State and TASMAC that the search by ED was politically motivated and said that courts cannot examine such issues."Whether a court can go and examine if political forces are at play or be a partaker in the political game? Definitely not. That is not the duty of the court of law. Are courts the place to decide this?" it remarked. The Bench added that when one political party comes into power, a rival party may make several allegations against it. However, a Court is not in a position to examine such allegations, it said. "We can only see the materials before us, the offence committed, irrespective of whether it is party A or B, and apply the law and ensure justice is served. The right place to place this submission is before the people of this country. They witness the actions of the persons in power and so the best Judges to decide the case of politics would be the people of our Great Nation. Eventually, what matters the most is the 'Will of the People'," it held. .Whether a court can examine if political forces are at play or be a partaker in the political game? Definitely not.Madras High Court.It further stated that the offence of money laundering is a crime against nation and few inconveniences cannot be ground to strike down the raids."Can a few inconveniences which is product of ‘procedure established by law’ as embedded in Article 21 be equated against the economic rights of the people of this country. 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 in accordance with law," the Court said. .Can a few inconveniences be equated against the economic rights of the people of this country?Madras High Court.The Court reasoned that in any country with a huge population like India's, there may be certain delays and inconveniences when it comes to ensuring compliance with the law. "But can we throw away an entire system for the same. It is impractical to expect a highly comfortable and pleasant ambience for anybody who has to comply with the laws of a country," it said. The Bench proceeded to criticise the Tamil Nadu government and TASMAC for approaching the Court after a "mere search", instead of focusing on performing their public functions. "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. It is agonising that public servants who ought to work for the welfare of the people, have approached this Court stating that they were detained by an investigating agency while conducting a search and that this amounts harassment. How can a procedure established by law be termed as harassment. This is a challenge to the very ethos of criminal justice system," the Bench said. .Unfortunate that a mere search was conducted and the petitioners with complete whimsical arguments approached this Court for declaring search itself illegal.Madras High Court.The case concerned raids conducted by the ED from March 6 to March 8 at the TASMAC's headquarters on allegations that TASMAC officials had been engaging in overpricing of liquor bottles, tender manipulation and bribery, leading to financial irregularities of over ₹1,000 crores. The ED suspected money laundering based on allegations contained in around 41-46 first information reports (FIRs) registered by the State government or the TASMAC against TASMAC officials over years. The DMK-led State government and the TASMAC has, however, accused the ED of an overreach of its powers and termed the March raids illegal. They proceeded to challenge the legality of the ED's raids before the Madras High Court. .TASMAC, Tamil Nadu on mission to defeat very core of PMLA: CourtThe Court has opined that the petitioners, TASMAC and the Tamil Nadu government, embarked "on a mission to defeat the very core of PMLA and criminal justice system" when it opposed the ED's jurisdiction by citing principles of federalism. "Section 1 of PMLA clearly states that the Act extends to the whole of India. The concept of federalism cannot be applied here. Our Constitution is quasi federal in nature but the traces of federalism is applied only for the benefit of the people and not to their detriment. PMLA are legislation to prevent crimes affecting National economic growth. How can concept of federalism be argued in cases concerning offences against National economy?" the Court remarked. .Federalism cannot be invoked to prevent investigation into crimes against nation: CourtFederalism, though present in "limited doses in our Constitution" should be used only for the upliftment of people, "not to prevent investigation into crimes or offences which are committed against the nation," the Court added. "State Governments should in fact be open to allow any investigating agency to weed out any offences that is plaguing the State. Instead proposing unrealistic conditions which goes against the very operation of criminal procedures defies the object of the PMLA and the Constitution," it further held. .That is how normally a surprise check is conducted... cannot be termed harassment...Madras High Court.No harassment in ED's action: CourtThe Court went on to observe that surprise raids may sometimes result in phones being seized or people being asked to stay back. This cannot be termed harassment, it said. Notably, the TASMAC and the State had accused the ED of harassing TASMAC employees during the search operations, particularly by detaining such employees under the guise of interrogation or search and seizure for over 60 hours. The ED strongly refuted the claims of any harassment of TASMAC officials and maintained that the search operations were warranted and justified to unearth money laundering activities.Agreeing with the ED's stance, the Court said:"That is how normally a surprise check is conducted. How can an investigating agency conduct a fair and safe search if all the employees are allowed to leave the premises. Any reasonable man would know that if the employees are allowed to go, there is high chance of destruction or concealment of evidence, which would defeat the very purpose of such a search. It is a due process of law, which is well within the ambit of Article 21, that the employees be detained to prevent any untoward methods that may be aimed to sabotage the investigation. This cannot be termed as harassment," the judgment reads. The Court added that if it accepted the argument that the ED's search operation involved harassment, it could open a floodgate of litigations where every citizen may allege harassment over having to comply with legal procedures. "Thousands of litigants in this country wait for years with patience praying for Justice which is their constitutional right. But it is unfortunate that the government officers who are public servants cannot tolerate a few hours of detention to ensure a smooth investigation to be conducted," it added. .Court questions petitioners' motivesThe Court even questioned whether the TASMAC and State had filed their petitions only to delay the ED's probe against TASMAC."If there are charges of harassment, how can one file a petition to state that a search must be declared illegal and that in essence prohibits any future searches as well? This is highly alarming and such petitions ought to be dismissed at threshold. It raises pertinent question as to the intention behind filing such writ petitions, whether is it a strategy to prolong and protract the investigation is a legitimate query that arises," the Court said. .The case was initially heard by a Bench of Justices MS Ramesh and N Senthilkumar who on March 20, orally asked the ED to hold off any taking any further coercive action for the time-being. This Bench had also expressed alarm over the allegations that the ED had kept back TASMAC officials at the TASMAC office for over 60 hours.However, days later, the Bench of Justices Ramesh and Senthilkumar recused from hearing the case. After this, the matter was heard by Justices Subramaniam and Rajasekar.The case also briefly reached Supreme Court, when the Tamil Nadu filed a plea to transfer the matter to the top court following the recusal of Justices Ramesh and Senthilkumar. However, the State chose to withdraw the transfer plea after the Supreme Court expressed that it was disinclined to allow the transfer. .Senior Advocates Vikram Chaudhary and Vikas Singh led the arguments for TASMAC while the State was represented by Advocate General PS Raman.The ED's arguments were led by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju..ED v. TASMAC: Madras High Court irked by State approaching Supreme Court "behind its back".[Read Judgment].[Read Live Coverage]
