TASMAC PMLA Case: Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Order Closing Filmmaker's Plea Against ED Search

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Madras High Court's order closing filmmaker Akash Baskaran's writ petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) search at his residence in connection with the alleged TASMAC money laundering case.

The ED had conducted searches on May 16,17 and 18, 2025 at the premises of Baskaran, P.R. Rajesh Kumar and three others, pursuant to ECIR dated October 3, 2023. 

The High Court noted that an earlier petition filed by P.R. Rajesh Kumar challenging the same searches had been closed on December 10, 2025, with liberty to raise all grounds before the Appellate Tribunal. Following the same approach, it permitted Baskaran to raise his objections before the Tribunal.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana after hearing the parties, declined to interfere with the High Court order. 

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra submitted that Baskaran stood on a different footing from P.R. Rajesh Kumar, whose earlier petition challenging the same searches had been closed by the High Court. He argued that unlike Rajesh Kumar, Baskaran had no adjudication order against him which he could challenge before the Appellate Tribunal.

Luthra submitted that the High Court had merely relegated him to the Tribunal without examining whether the search itself was legally authorised. He argued that the show-cause notice issued to Baskaran had subsequently been withdrawn and that he was therefore left without an effective remedy to challenge the proceedings.

The Bench questioned why Baskaran could not raise the legality of the search before the statutory forum.

“You can always argue that the reasonable belief on the basis of which the search was made was inadequate or illegal, and therefore in the same proceedings…”, Justice Bagchi asked. 

Luthra however, distinguished Baskaran's case from that of Rajesh Kumar and referred the Bench to the earlier High Court order. He pointed out that Baskaran was respondent number four in the connected proceedings and that the order passed in Rajesh Kumar's case did not cover his situation.

He also drew the Court's attention to the earlier proceedings before the High Court, in which the ED had been directed to produce the material forming the basis of its search authorisation.

Referring to the High Court's observations, Luthra submitted that the ED had produced an undated and unsigned explanation note which allegedly did not disclose any material capable of forming the basis for a reasonable belief that Baskaran was involved in money laundering.

He further referred to the High Court's finding that the authorisation and consequential search were without jurisdiction, as no incriminating information or material was in the ED's possession when the search was authorised.

The Bench then sought to clarify the scope of the challenge, distinguishing the earlier proceedings concerning search and seizure from the subsequent proceedings relating to provisional attachment of property.

The Court ultimately dismissed Baskaran's challenge.