ED officials are evolving by expanding their powers day by day: Madras High Court

Courts often remark that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 is an evolving legislation which often throws up new legal questions 'but, I find that it is actually the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) officials who are evolving day by day by expanding their powers,' in the course of implementing the legislation, said Justice M.S. Ramesh of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (June 17, 2025).
Presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice V. Lakshminarayanan to hear a batch of three writ petitions filed by film producer Akash Baskaran and his friend Vikram Ravindran, the senior judge wondered which provision of the PMLA empowers the ED officials to seal a residential/business premises if it was found to be locked when the officials go over there for a search and seizure operation.
The question was raised since Mr. Ravindran, serving as director at Akash Baskaran Creative Studios Private Limited, in his two writ petitions, had accused the ED officials of having 'sealed' his office premises at Semmenchery and also a rented residential flat at Poes Garden in Chennai since they were locked and he was not present over there when a search operation was attempted on May 16.
Denying the charge of having sealed the two premises, ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh told the Bench that the officials had merely stuck notices on the doors asking the petitioner to get in touch with them to cooperate with a money laundering investigation. However, Justice Ramesh pointed out the notices had clearly stated the premises should not be opened without the permission of the ED officials.
Even assuming the words found in the notice would not amount to sealing, from where do you get the power to prevent an individual from entering his home or office, asked Justice Lakshminarayanan. He also said, no sane person would dare to ignore the notice stuck by a public official on his/her door and enter the premises without the fear of being prosecuted for having defied the orders passed by the officer.
Mr. Ramesh told the court that Section 17 of the PMLA empowers the ED officials to even break open the locks for conducting the search operation. However, 'we did not want to take the drastic step of breaking open the locks and so we stuck the notices,' the SPP said and told the Bench that the ED officials were willing to remove the notices immediately if the court would permit them to do so.
He also told the court the two writ petitioners before the court had so far not been treated as accused in the ongoing TASMAC money laundering investigation and that the necessity to search their premises had arisen only on the basis of credible information received by the Directorate that certain materials related to the offence could be in their possession. He said, the petitioners must cooperate with the probe.
After hearing the SPP at length, the judges granted him time till Wednesday (June 18) for producing the documents related to the investigation.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

5 hours ago

• Time of India

Court order seeking FIR in EDC land fraud matter stayed

Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa stayed the order of a North Goa court directing the anti-corruption branch (ACB) of the directorate of vigilance to register a first information report (FIR) in connection with allegations of fraud related to land allotment at EDC, Patto. Initially, the trial court had directed the CBI to register the FIR but later assigned the task to the ACB. S Karpe, additional public prosecutor said that the order passed by the sessions court judge at Panaji in the criminal case did not take into consideration the consent as contemplated under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. According to the counsel, there was no reason given by the trial court for arriving at the conclusion that the FIR needs to be registered within 24 hours in accordance with the complaint. Subsequently, an application was filed for an extension of time, which was granted by the sessions court on June 19, extending the same by 48 hours. 'Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on July 11, 2025. Notice be issued by all the available modes of service. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated June 9, 2025, shall be stayed till the next date,' Justice Nivedita Mehta observed. Activists had moved the court alleging that govt property was allotted to EDC to house certain offices, but they allegedly leased and sold land without obtaining permission from the govt, causing a loss of Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Even if permission was obtained, they ought to have deposited 50% of the amount with the govt or the EDC, which has not been done, the activists had alleged. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered. There is nothing exceptional in the present case that warrants a delay in the registration of an FIR on the ground of a preliminary inquiry. Even if there were exceptional circumstances in the case, any preliminary inquiry could not have, under any circumstances, exceeded two days,' the sessions court Judge Irshad Agha had stated. 'In the present case, the FIR ought to have been registered and a preliminary inquiry ought to have been carried out by the investigating agency. However, there is enough material to directly register the FIR,' the judge had said.

Hindustan Times

5 hours ago

• Hindustan Times

ED withdraws summons to senior advocate amid row

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) on Friday withdrew its summons to senior advocate Pratap Venugopal, hours after the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) urged Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to take suo motu cognisance of the agency's move, calling it a grave infringement on the independence of the legal profession and the sanctity of lawyer-client privilege. The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance. (HT photo) Venugopal, summoned on June 19 to appear before the ED on June 24 under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, received a text message from the agency on Friday afternoon informing him that the notice 'stands withdrawn with immediate effect.' The summons pertained to the ongoing investigation into the allotment of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) by Care Health Insurance to former Religare Enterprises Chairperson Rashmi Saluja. Venugopal was the Advocate-on-Record (AoR) for a legal opinion rendered by senior counsel Arvind Datar in the matter. ED had earlier summoned Datar as well, but that notice too was rescinded following backlash from the legal fraternity. In a letter dated June 20, SCAORA President Vipin Nair described the summons to Venugopal as 'a deeply disquieting development,' and warned that coercive measures against lawyers for professional legal opinions strike at the heart of legal privilege and the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. SCAORA asserted that such actions represent an 'impermissible transgression' into the constitutionally protected sphere of legal advice. 'The role of an advocate in offering legal advice is both privileged and protected. Interference by investigative agencies, particularly in respect of opinions rendered in a professional capacity—strikes at the core of the rule of law,' the letter stated. SCAORA urged the Supreme Court to examine the legality and propriety of summoning advocates for professional opinions and called for the framing of clear guidelines to insulate the legal profession from similar overreach in the future. This is the second time in recent days that the Association has stepped in to defend the autonomy of the Bar. On June 16, SCAORA issued a public statement condemning the ED's notice to Datar as 'unwarranted' and a manifestation of growing investigative overreach. Similar concerns have echoed across the legal landscape. On June 17, the Delhi High Court Bar Association passed a resolution criticising the ED's actions, warning of a direct threat to the constitutional right to legal representation and fair trial. The Gujarat High Court Advocates Association also convened an emergency meeting, with its president Brijesh Trivedi calling for urgent government action to protect lawyer-client privilege through amendments to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. While ED has not formally disclosed reasons for withdrawing the summons to Venugopal, senior members of the Bar see the move as an implicit recognition of the serious constitutional and professional issues flagged by the legal community.

NDTV

6 hours ago

• NDTV

Cops Can't Barge Into History Sheeters' Homes For 'Surveillance': Court

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has held that the police have no right to knock on the doors of suspected persons or history sheeters or "barge" into their homes at night under the guise of surveillance. The ruling by Justice V G Arun came on a plea by a man accused of threatening police officers from discharging their duties when they asked him to come out of his home late at night as part of night check on rowdy history sheeters. Allowing the plea, the court quashed the FIR against the man and all further proceedings in connection with it, saying that "under the guise of surveillance, the police cannot knock on the doors or barge into the houses of history sheeters". The court said that police officers should understand that the concept of home "transcends its physical manifestation as a dwelling and encompasses a rich tapestry of existential, emotional and social dimensions". "In other words, every man's house is his castle or temple, the sanctity of which cannot be vilified by knocking on the door at odd hours. A person's right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity and dignity is non-negotiable," it said. The court further said that under the Kerala Police Manual only 'informal watching' of history sheeters and 'close watch' over those leading criminal existence were permitted. "Undoubtedly, neither of those expressions permit domicile visits at night," it added. It also pointed out that under section 39 of the Kerala Police Act all persons are bound to comply with the 'lawful directions' of a police officer for discharge of his functions. "Knocking on the doors of a history sheeter at midnight and demanding him to come out of the house cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as a lawful direction," the court said. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence of threatening a police officer to obstruct him from discharging his duties under the Kerala Police Act for refusing to abide by the direction to come out of the house at night, the court added. "If, as alleged, the petitioner had used derogatory language or threatened the police during the course of such refusal, his action may invite some other offence, but definitely not the offence he is presently charged with," it said. The petitioner had claimed that he was implicated in the case to divert the enquiry ordered by the High Court into his complaint alleging police harassment. The police had claimed that as part of their night check duty on rowdy history sheeters, officers had gone to ascertain if the petitioner was at home. However, when he was asked to open the door of his home, he refused to do so and also abused and intimidated the officer, it had alleged.