Vikram Ravindran Vs Joint Director (Madras High Court)
In a significant development, the Madras High Court has ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to de-seal premises belonging to Vikram Ravindran, finding that the federal agency acted “wholly without authority or jurisdiction” in its search, seizure, and sealing operations. The court’s decision hinged on the ED’s inability to demonstrate a valid “reason to believe” that the petitioner was involved in money laundering, as mandated by Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The petitioner, Vikram Ravindran, challenged an ED notice issued on May 15, 2025, which led to the sealing of his premises at DLF Garden City, Old Mahabalipuram Road, with a directive against opening it without prior permission. The ED’s actions were ostensibly part of an investigation into alleged money laundering connected to the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). This context is critical, as the Supreme Court had already issued an interim order on May 22, 2025, restraining the ED from taking coercive steps, including fresh search, seizure, or investigation, against TASMAC and its officials in related ECIRs (Enforcement Case Information Reports).
Petitioner Denied TASMAC Link, Challenged ED’s Authority
During the High Court proceedings, the learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner asserted that Vikram Ravindran had no involvement whatsoever with TASMAC operations. Furthermore, it was argued that none of the 41 First Information Reports (FIRs) lodged by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) for the scheduled offenses, which form the predicate for money laundering investigations, contained any independent allegation or predicate offense specifically registered against the petitioner. This absence, the counsel contended, rendered the ED’s invocation of Section 17 of the PMLA against the petitioner invalid.
