In May, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) began probing a suspected ₹1,000-crore fraud and money-laundering case involving TASMAC. During the investigation, the agency searched the homes of Aakash Baskaran and businessman Vikram Ravindran, seizing items from one residence and sealing the items. Both approached the Madras High Court, stating they had no connection to TASMAC and that the searches, conducted without evidence, violated Section 17 of the PMLA.
The ED submitted its reasons for the search in a sealed cover. After carefully examining the sealed materials and the agency’s explanation, the High Court observed that none of the documents or information presented established any link between the petitioners and the alleged TASMAC fraud. The Court further noted that the authorization issued on 15.05.2025, which formed the basis of the search, did not meet the legal requirements under Section 17 of the PMLA and therefore lacked jurisdiction. As a result, the Court held that both the authorization and the subsequent search were unsustainable in law. It then ordered an immediate halt to all further proceedings against the petitioners and directed the ED to return all items seized during the search without delay.
Despite the High Court’s clear stay order, the ED went on to issue a notice under Section 8(1) on July 7, continued to send further show-cause notices, compelling Baskaran and Ravindran to initiate contempt proceedings. Rather than comply with the High Court’s directions, the ED challenged the stay before the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, thereby upholding the High Court’s interim protection.