Supreme Court’s remarks on the Enforcement Directorate are based on facts: CJI

The Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai on Monday (August 18, 2025) said any adverse oral remarks made by the Supreme Court against the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) were dispassionate and based entirely on facts, even as the Central agency’s counsel rued these comments “percolate” to create a bad impression among the people and even within the judiciary itself.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tamil Nadu, intervened to remark that the perception of the ED was out there in the public domain, with or without the court’s comments.

“The perception is out there… Even if the court does not say anything, the perception remains,” Mr. Sibal said.

The court had taken up a petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the investigation and raids conducted by the ED on the offices of the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The Madras High Court had, in April, declined to stay the ED’s investigation and raids on the corporation.

In the previous hearing of the case, on May 22, the CJI had orally remarked that the ED was “crossing all limits” while staying the probe.

“How can a corporation commit an offence? The ED is crossing all limits,” Chief Justice Gavai had asked Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the Central agency.

Chief Justice Gavai had said the ED’s actions against the State corporation had breached the federal structure of the country.

“You are totally violating the federal structure of the country,” CJI Gavai had remarked.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for TASMAC, had said the phones of the employees were cloned. “There is something called privacy,” Mr. Rohatgi had submitted.

Mr. Sibal, for Tamil Nadu, had at the time submitted that the State itself had registered 41 First Information Reports (FIRs) against liquor outlet operators over allegations of corruption.

The ED had entered the scene in 2025 and proceeded to raid the headquarters of TASMAC to confiscate the phones and devices found there.

“How can a criminal offence be made out against the corporation? You may register FIRs against the individuals, but against the corporation, in a criminal matter?” the CJI asked.

The Additional Solicitor General had argued that the investigation involved a fraud committed to the tune of ₹1,000 crore, and that politicians were involved in the case.