Madras High Court Stays ED Property Attachment Against Ex-Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan

THE MADRAS HIGH COURT on Monday ordered a three-week status quo on the attachment of 18 immovable properties owned by former DMK Minister and incumbent Tiruchendur MLA Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and his family members. The properties, located in Madurai and Thoothukudi districts, were attached by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with a money laundering case.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan granted the interim relief in response to appeals filed by the ED challenging an order of the appellate tribunal under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The tribunal, on May 8, 2025, had lifted the attachment on 17 of the 18 properties and confirmed it only on one property in Madurai.

Additional Solicitor General AR.L. Sundaresan, assisted by ED Special Public Prosecutor P. Sidharthan, informed the court that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) had originally registered a disproportionate assets case against the former Minister on September 7, 2006. The case alleged that Radhakrishnan had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income between 2001 and 2006, when he was a member of the AIADMK cabinet.

According to DVAC, the accused possessed properties worth ₹23.36 lakh at the start of the check period on May 14, 2001, but had acquired properties worth ₹6.86 crore by the end of the check period on March 31, 2006. The investigation was completed and a charge-sheet was filed in 2013, after which a special court provisionally attached eight properties.

Based on the corruption case, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on December 22, 2020 to investigate offences under the PMLA. The central agency attached 18 immovable properties, and the provisional attachment was confirmed by the PMLA adjudicating authority.

However, when the accused challenged the confirmation, the PMLA appellate tribunal held that the attachment of 12 of the 18 properties was illegal because the ED had considered only the value of the land and not the buildings constructed on them. It also ruled that the attachment of five of the remaining six properties was improper since they had already been attached in the disproportionate assets case.

In its appeal, the ED argued that the tribunal's reasoning was fundamentally flawed. The agency contended that the tribunal failed to consider the possibility that the accused might dispose of the properties if the special court hearing the disproportionate assets case lifted its attachment without notice to the ED. Therefore, it was necessary for the ED to maintain its own attachment.

The ED also stated that if the tribunal believed the properties had not been valued correctly, it should have ordered a revaluation instead of declaring the provisional attachment illegal.

The high court, after hearing arguments, ordered status quo on the attachment for three weeks, providing interim relief to the former minister while the ED's appeals are pending.