Parasakthi producer Aakash Baskaran wins relief in TASMAC case: High Court raps ED for overreach

'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran's involvement in the TASMAC corruption case shocked Kollywood fans. In the recent development, the Madras High Court strongly questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) authority in sealing properties during its investigation into the TASMAC corruption case. The court noted that the ED only has the power to operate the search and recovery under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), but the ceiling complex requires a specific legal authority.

It came in response to the petitions filed by 'Parasakthi' producer Aakash Baskaran and industrialist Vikram Ravindran, who challenged the ED's action to seal their homes and offices. The court asked the ED to clarify under which provisions it exercised such powers and ordered the submission of related documents.ED sought time and withdrew the sealing order before courtWhen the matter resumed on June 18, ED argued that they had sufficient reasons to act based on suspicious illegal money transactions.

According to One India, their lawyers pointed to 41 FIRs registered in connection with the TASMAC probe and insisted that even a strong suspicion was enough to warrant an investigation. However, the judges were unconvinced, asking whether the names of the petitioners appeared in any of those FIRs.

They emphasized that suspicion alone cannot justify sealing properties and demanded clarity on the legal grounds for such action.

Judges criticize ED’s justification and seek clear evidence.Responding to the ED's submission, the court said, "On what basis do you believe that the petitioners are involved?" The bench reiterated that while the ED has the power to investigate, sealing a base during a discovery is not within their standard authority until strong evidence and court approval are supported. This raised important concerns over the interpretation of the ED's investigative powers.Final verdict: No authority to seal without judicial orderWhile ending the session, the court made it clear that Ed had abolished its jurisdiction. The judges unevenly stated that sealing any property during an investigation cannot be done only on doubt. He said that such acts are not unauthorized until the court is allowed. Subsequently, the ED agreed to withdraw its earlier sealing order, giving a temporary resolution to the dispute.