On 8 April 2025, Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court criticized the Tamil Nadu government for “disrespecting and insulting” the High Court in its approach to transferring a set of cases related to the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) recent search and seizure operation at the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) headquarters in Chennai. The operation took place between 6 and 8 March 2025.
While presiding over a Division Bench alongside Justice K. Rajasekar, Justice Subramaniam questioned whether the state was more concerned with protecting the public interest or the interests of certain TASMAC officials being investigated by the ED. He accused the state government of being unfair to the court proceedings and disrespecting the High Court, addressing State Government Pleader (SGP) Edwin Prabakar.
The remarks came after the SGP informed the court about the state’s request to the Supreme Court to transfer three writ petitions—one filed by the state and two by TASMAC—challenging the legality of the ED’s operation and seeking to prevent further harassment of TASMAC officials. The state argued that the writ petitions were filed to safeguard the welfare of the state and its citizens, and requested that the High Court delay hearing the matter by a couple of hours to await the outcome of the transfer petition in the Supreme Court.
However, Justice Subramaniam questioned the timing of the transfer petition, pointing out that the state had previously agreed in court on 1 April 2025, to commence final arguments on the writ petitions by 8 August 2025. He expressed his concerns about how the state filed the transfer plea without informing the High Court beforehand, despite being given the opportunity to do so earlier. Although the state had the right to approach the Supreme Court, the judge criticized the way the transfer petition was filed as improper.
Later that day, the Division Bench was informed that the Supreme Court had dismissed the state’s transfer petition, and TASMAC decided to proceed with its two writ petitions before the High Court. Senior Counsel Vikram Chaudhary began presenting his arguments on behalf of TASMAC and was granted permission to continue his submissions the following day.
After the hearing concluded, Advocate General P.S. Raman requested that the interim order issued by another Division Bench on 20 March, which had directed the ED to refrain from taking coercive action, be extended until the writ petitions were resolved. However, ED Special Public Prosecutor N. Ramesh strongly objected, stating that the ED had not made any commitments to the previous Division Bench. After hearing both sides, Justice Subramaniam stated that his Bench was not inclined to issue any interim orders but was prepared to expedite the hearing and resolve the main writ petitions as soon as possible.
(With inputs from The Hindu)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.