TASMAC money laundering case: Madras High Court fines ED for not filing counter affidavits to Akash Baskaran’s petitions

The Madras High Court on Wednesday (August 6, 2025) imposed costs of ₹30,000 on Directorate of Enforcement (ED) officials for not having filed counter affidavits to three writ petitions filed by film producer Akash Baskaran and his friend Vikram Ravindran in June this year, challenging the action taken against them in connection with the TASMAC money laundering investigation.

A Division Bench of Justices M.S. Ramesh and V. Lakshminarayanan imposed the costs at the rate of ₹10,000 for each of the three writ petitions after finding that senior counsel Vijay Narayan was ready to argue the matter on behalf of the writ petitioners but the ED had not filed its counter affidavits. The judges granted two more weeks for the investigating agency to file the affidavits.

The producer and his friend had approached the High Court to declare as illegal the search and seizure operation the ED officials had carried out at their residences and office premises. The petitioners claimed they had nothing to do with the money laundering probe that the ED had undertaken against a few Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) officials.

On June 20, 2025, the Division Bench had stayed all further proceedings to be taken by the ED against the writ petitioners. The stay was granted after being prima facie satisfied that an authorisation issued by a Joint Director of ED on May 15, 2025, and the consequential search and seizure operations conducted at the petitioners’ residences and office were “wholly without authority or jurisdiction.”

Then, the judges perused the case records produced by the ED before the court in a sealed cover and found that the investigating agency was not in possession of any incriminating information or material connecting the two writ petitioners with the TASMAC money laundering case when the Joint Director had issued the authorisation for search and seizure operation on May 15, 2025.

“It would be suffice to state that the so-called information produced by the Directorate before us had absolutely no semblance of information which may have led them to believe that the petitioners may be involved in the offence of money laundering. In the light of the above observations, there shall be an order of interim stay,” the Bench had observed while passing the interim orders.

Thereafter, the judges had posted the main writ petitions for hearing on Wednesday but found that the counter affidavits from the ED were not forthcoming. Hence, they imposed costs and granted two more weeks for filing the affidavits.