Chennai, Dec 17 The Madras High Court on Wednesday declined to grant any interim relief to Tamil Nadu Rural Development Minister I. Periyasamy and his family members, in connection with a money laundering case being probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), without first hearing the central agency.
A First Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G. Arul Murugan made it clear that no interim protection could be extended to the petitioners unless notice was ordered to the ED and sufficient time was granted for the agency to file its response.
The Bench permitted ED’s Special Public Prosecutor R. Sidharthan to take notice on behalf of the agency and directed the ED to file a detailed counter-affidavit by January 5, 2026, in response to all the writ petitions filed in the matter.
The petitions were filed by Periyasamy, his son I.P. Senthilkumar, and his daughter P. Indira, challenging the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered against them under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The ECIR was registered on the basis of a disproportionate assets case earlier booked against the Minister by the State police.
The petitioners have sought quashing of the ECIR as well as all consequential proceedings initiated by the ED, contending that the continuation of the money laundering probe was legally unsustainable under the present circumstances. During the hearing, it was brought to the notice of the court that a special court constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act had earlier discharged the Minister from the predicate offence registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC).
However, that discharge order was subsequently reversed by the Madras High Court in 2025.
Following the reversal, Periyasamy had approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. The apex court had granted an interim stay in his favour, staying further proceedings arising from the High Court’s decision.
Citing the interim protection granted by the Supreme Court, the Minister and his family members argued that the ED’s money laundering proceedings, which are dependent on the predicate offence, ought not to continue and sought immediate relief from the High Court.
The Division Bench, however, refrained from granting any interim orders at this stage, observing that the ED must be heard before any relief could be considered.
The matter has been posted for further hearing after the enforcement agency files its response.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor