In a significant development reaffirming judicial oversight over investigative actions, the Supreme Court of India today dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) appeal at the admission stage, thereby upholding the interim stay earlier granted by the Madras High Court in favour of Mr. Aakash Baskaran and Mr. Vikram Ravindran.The matter originated in May 2025, when the ED initiated an investigation into an alleged ₹1000 crore fraud involving TASMAC, the state-run liquor retail corporation. During the course of that probe, the agency conducted searches at the residences of Mr. Baskaran and Mr. Ravindran. Materials were seized from Mr. Baskaran’s home, while Mr. Ravindran’s residence was sealed.
Both individuals consistently maintained that they had no involvement whatsoever with the TASMAC case, asserting that the ED’s actions were carried out without any incriminating material and in violation of Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which mandates the existence of a legally sustainable “reason to believe” prior to conducting a search or seizure.
*Madras High Court Clears Petitioners; Finds ED’s Actions Without Jurisdiction*
Upon challenge, the ED submitted its justification to the Madras High Court in a sealed cover. After examining the contents, the Court recorded that “none of the materials had any connection to the petitioner”. This led the Court to a clear prima facie finding that the authorization dated 15.05.2025 and the subsequent search were without jurisdiction.
The Court accordingly granted:
– An interim stay on all further proceedings against the petitioners
– Directions to return all seized materials
– ED Violates Court Orders; High Court Expresses Strong Displeasure
Despite the explicit stay, the ED proceeded to issue a notice under Section 8(1) along with a covering letter dated 07 July 2025. When this violation was brought to the Court’s attention, the agency attempted to characterise it as “inadvertent”.
However, the Court expressed its displeasure, and following repeated failures by the ED to file a counter-affidavit, imposed ₹30,000 in costs, payable to the Chief Justice Relief Fund.
Subsequently, the ED again acted contrary to the court’s directive by issuing a fresh show cause notice from the Adjudicating Authority — prompting Baskaran and Ravindran to file a contempt petition before the Madras High Court.
Rather than complying with the High Court’s stay, the ED escalated the matter to the Supreme Court. Today, the apex court dismissed the ED’s petition at the admission stage itself, effectively affirming the High Court’s interim protection and censuring the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners.