Madras High Court orders status quo on attachment of properties of DMK e Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan by ED

Published 29 June 2026 · politics

The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 29, 2026), ordered maintenance of status quo with respect to attachment of 18 immovable properties, owned by former

The Madras High Court, on Monday (June 29, 2026), ordered maintenance of status quo with respect to attachment of 18 immovable properties, owned by former DMK Minister and incumbent Tiruchendur MLA Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and his family members in Madurai and Thoothukudi districts, by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in connection with a money laundering case. Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan granted the interim relief for a period of three weeks pursuant to a batch of eight civil miscellaneous appeals filed by the ED challenging an appellate tribunal’s May 8, 2025 order lifting the attachment with respect to 17 properties and confirming it only with respect to one property in Madurai. Additional Solicitor General AR.L.

Sundaresan, assisted by ED Special Public Prosecutor P. Sidharthan, told the court the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) had initially registered a disproportionate assets case against the former Minister on September 7, 2006 for having allegedly amassed the wealth between 2001 and 2006 when he was a part of the AIADMK Cabinet. According to the DVAC, the accused were in possession of properties worth ₹23.36 lakh during the beginning of the check period on May 14, 2001 but had acquired properties worth ₹6.86 crore at the end of the check period on March 31, 2006. The investigating agency had completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet in 2013 after which a special court had provisionally attached eight properties.

On the basis of the corruption case, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on December 22, 2020 in order to probe commission of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) of 2002 too. The central agency also attached 18 immovable properties and the provisional attachment order was confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the PMLA. However, when the accused challenged the confirmation, the PMLA appellate tribunal held the attachment of 12 of the 18 properties was illegal since the ED had taken into consideration only the value of the lands and not that of the buildings constructed on those lands. It also said, the attachment of five of the rest of the six properties was improper since they had already been attached in the disproportionate assets case.

Assailing the tribunal’s order in the present appeals, the ED contended the reasoning given by it was fundamentally wrong. The agency said, the tribunal had failed to take into consideration that the accused might dispose of their properties if the special court, hearing the disproportionate assets case, happens to lift the attachment without notice to the ED and hence it was important for the latter too to attach them. The agency also stated if the tribunal was of the view that the properties had not been valued properly, it ought to have ordered for revaluation instead of declaring the provisional attachment as illegal.