The Madras High Court on Wednesday dismissed the petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu government and the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC) that sought to nullify recent search operations conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) at the TASMAC headquarters on March 6 and March 8.

The division bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar ruled that in matters involving alleged money laundering, procedural discomforts must yield to economic justice. The court underscored that judicial forums cannot entertain political interpretations, particularly concerning search and seizure proceedings linked to enforcement agencies.

Rejecting the State's allegation that the searches were timed to influence upcoming elections, the bench clarified that such claims are to be judged by the electorate, not by courts. "Judicial forums are not venues for election-related speculation; the public's verdict holds greater relevance," the bench stated.

The court permitted the ED to continue its investigation, dismissing all contentions raised by TASMAC and the State Government. The order came after the conclusion of hearings earlier this week, where multiple senior counsels, including Vikram Chaudhri and Vikas Singh for the petitioners, and ASG S.V. Raju with ED Special Prosecutor N. Ramesh for the respondents, presented their arguments.

Originally, the case was listed before a different bench that recused itself after orally requesting a temporary pause in ED proceedings. Subsequently, the matter was re-assigned. During the pendency of hearings, the petitioners also approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of the case, but the plea was withdrawn after the apex court showed reluctance to intervene. The High Court later criticized the State and TASMAC for failing to disclose the Supreme Court approach, citing it as disrespect toward the proceedings.

In their arguments, TASMAC challenged the ED's legal standing to initiate a probe without establishing a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitioners claimed the searches were exploratory and unsupported by factual grounds, alleging that ED did not provide the "reasons to believe" mandated under the Act before executing the search under Section 17. They further argued that assistance under Section 54 could have been sought instead.

ED representatives countered by pointing out that multiple FIRs had been filed by the state police concerning alleged corruption within TASMAC, including bribery, price manipulation of liquor products, and irregular transfers. The agency asserted that these complaints were sufficient to warrant investigation and that courts are not entitled to interfere with the operational scope of enforcement searches.

The ED also rebutted the harassment claims, citing records showing that officials were not detained overnight and were allowed to return home. It noted that the Panchnama was accepted and signed by TASMAC personnel.

The ED further contended that the petitioners bypassed procedural channels by directly moving the High Court instead of the Adjudicating Authority under Section 17(2) of PMLA. The agency argued that delays in notifying the adjudicating authority were justifiable and documented.