Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam dismiss a writ petition filed by the Minister in 2022 to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report

krishnan. | Photo Credit: RAJESH N

î –The Madras High Court on Wednesday refused to quash proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against Minister for Fisheries, Fishermen Welfare and Animal Husbandry Anitha R. Radhakrishnan under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and V. Sivagnanam dismissed a writ petition filed by him in 2022 with a plea to quash the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against him in 2020 on the basis of a 2001-2006 disproportionate assets case. The judges refused to accept any of the multiple grounds raised by the Minister for quashing the ECIR and expected him to cooperate with the investigating agency in completing the money laundering probe and filing a report before the special court for PMLA cases.

The verdict was delivered after hearing arguments advanced by the petitioner’s counsel and Additional Solicitor General AR.L Sundaresan, assisted by ED special public prosecutor N. Ramesh, who opposed the plea for quashing the ECIR and all consequential proceedings. In his affidavit, the Minister said the ED had registered the ECIR in December 2020 on the basis of the disproportionate assets case booked by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption in 2006. He claimed the PMLA could not be invoked against him since the law came into force only in July 2005. Stating that the check period in the disproportionate assets case was between May 14, 2001 and March 31, 2006, the petitioner said Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was made a part of the scheduled offences under the PMLA only in June 2009. Since it was not a scheduled offence when the PMLA came into force in 2005, he said that the ECIR booked against him on the basis of the 2006 disproportionate assets case would have no legs to stand.

The PMLA, being a penal statute, could not operate retrospectively since that would be in violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution (which states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence), he had said.