SC Stays ED Probe in TASMAC Case, Slams Federal Overreach

SC Stays ED Probe Against TASMAC | CJI Says ‘ED Crossing Limits, Violating Federal Structure’

News Desk, new Delhi, 22 May: SC: ‘ED Is Crossing All Limits, Violating Federal Structure’

The Supreme Court on May 22 stayed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) investigation and raids against the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC).
Chief Justice of India BR Gavai asked Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, “Your ED is crossing all limits. How can there be an offence against the corporation?”

The bench, comprising CJI BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih, was hearing petitions by the State of Tamil Nadu and TASMAC challenging the Madras High Court’s rejection of their plea against ED’s searches at the TASMAC headquarters.

Representing Tamil Nadu, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated the State had already filed 41 FIRs against liquor outlet operators between 2014 and 2021. Despite this, ED began its probe only in 2025, raiding the TASMAC headquarters and seizing officials’ phones and devices.

“ED is totally violating the federal structure,” remarked CJI Gavai, adding that such action should be directed at individuals, not the corporation.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the ED and granted interim relief to TASMAC, staying further proceedings. However, the Court declined to pass directions on restricting ED’s use of cloned phone data, citing existing interim relief.

ASG Raju asserted that the case involved a ₹1000 crore liquor scam. The CJI responded that the State had already taken action, questioning the ED’s jurisdiction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The controversy involves alleged cash collections above MRP and bribery for liquor outlet allotments. ED’s raid followed FIRs by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), but TASMAC argued that ED’s probe was political and a “roving inquiry.”

The Madras High Court had dismissed TASMAC’s plea on April 23, stating that temporary detentions during searches are procedural and do not amount to fundamental rights violations.

Despite pending litigation, ED conducted fresh raids, including on the residence of TASMAC MD S. Visakan and film producer Akash Baskaran.

Before the High Court, TASMAC alleged the ED concealed material facts and lacked jurisdiction. It accused the agency of acting during election season to malign reputations. ED, on the other hand, argued that suspicion based on FIRs sufficed for search authorization and insisted that the court should not interfere at this stage.

To stay updated on the latest in legal and judicial affairs, visit The Legal Observer, explore most popular stories, or check out national updates in our News section. For global coverage, head to our World News.

Want in-depth perspectives? Browse Debates, Insights, and Quote Unquote features. Visit our Legal Helpline for assistance, and don’t miss out on exclusive videos.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for legal news and expert opinions.