TASMAC Scam: Madras HC Reserves Verdict on Plea to Quash DVAC FIR

The Madras High Court on Friday (August 14, 2026) reserved its orders on a writ petition filed by T. Ramesh of Karur, a co-accused in the TASMAC tender irregularities case, seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) on July 28, 2026. The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan deferred its verdict after hearing arguments from senior counsel on both sides.

Ramesh, a former DMK Minister and incumbent Coimbatore South MLA V. Senthilbalaji's co-accused in the case, also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, which empowers police officers to arrest accused persons without prior summons for inquiry. He argued that this provision bypasses the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires a notice of inquiry before resorting to arrest.

During the hearing, senior counsel V. Raghavachari appeared for the petitioner, while senior counsel Siddhartha Dave and State Public Prosecutor R. John Sathyan represented the DVAC. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan also presented his submissions, opposing the writ petition on the ground that the challenge to Section 17 was not maintainable without any prima facie demonstration of unconstitutionality.

The petitioner, in his affidavit, stated that he was also an accused in the TVK MLAs ₹35-crore bribery case and that the High Court had on August 4, 2026, stayed the investigation conducted by the Greater Chennai Police in that case, pursuant to a similar writ petition filed by him challenging Section 17 of the PCA. He claimed that he was arrested by the DVAC in the TASMAC tenders case immediately after being released on bail in the TVK MLAs bribery case. He further stated that although his name does not figure in both FIRs, the police had implicated him on the basis of their investigation.

Opposing the plea, the DVAC contended that the petitioner could not casually urge the court to quash the FIR in a serious corruption case involving a loss of not less than ₹100 crore to the public exchequer due to large-scale irregularities in floating TASMAC tenders in 2021. The prosecution also noted that the Supreme Court had permitted the DVAC to proceed with the investigation while granting interim protection from arrest to the prime accused in the case, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

The ASG argued that the challenge to Section 17 was not maintainable at all since the petitioner had not raised any ground to show how the legal provision was unconstitutional. He also pointed out that the DVAC's FIR was registered based on proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a related case, and the petitioner cannot question its correctness in the guise of challenging Section 17.

TASMAC, the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation, is a government-owned entity responsible for the sale of liquor in the state. The tenders in question pertained to the supply of materials for the corporation's operations, and allegations of irregularities have led to multiple investigations. The DVAC's probe seeks to uncover the exact nature of the corruption and identify all individuals involved.

The court's decision to reserve its orders means that it will take time to review the legal arguments and constitutional questions raised. The judgment in this case will have significant implications for the scope of arrest powers under the PCA and the procedural safeguards available to accused persons in corruption probes. It will also determine whether the FIR against Ramesh in the TASMAC case stands.

As the legal proceedings continue, both the prosecution and the defence have stressed the importance of due process. While the DVAC maintains that the case involves serious financial irregularities, the petitioner has argued that his arrest was arbitrary and that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with established legal norms.