The Madras High Court put a stay on the Enforcement Directorate's order, which had provisionally attached property worth ₹10 crore belonging to Tamil filmmaker S Shankar in a copyright infringement case related to the 2010 film Enthiran.

The bench comprising Justice M.S. Ramesh and Justice N. Senthilkumar stayed the provisional attachment order in response to a plea filed by filmmaker S. Shankar. The Enforcement Directorate had attached the property on February 17, acting on a complaint by Arur Tamilnadan, who alleged that Shankar's film Enthiran was inspired by his story Jugiba, thereby violating his copyright.

Since offenses under the Copyright Act are classified as scheduled offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED had issued the provisional attachment order.

Notably, in June 2023, a single judge of the Madras High Court dismissed a civil suit filed by Arur Tamilnadan against S. Shankar, ruling that copyright cannot be claimed over an idea or concept. The court further observed that there was no evidence to establish that the story of Enthiran was a direct imitation of Jugiba.

When the plea was heard today, Senior Advocate P.S. Raman contended that the Enforcement Directorate’s action was arbitrary, particularly since a single judge had already ruled that there was no violation of the Copyright Act. He also challenged the ED’s claim that S. Shankar had received ₹11.5 crore from the project, asserting that the allegation was untrue. Raman argued that the payment Shankar received was from other works, making the ED’s decision to attach the property legally unsustainable.

The bench also questioned whether the Enforcement Directorate could initiate such action based solely on a complaint filed by a private individual.

“Can the ED register cases based on an individual's complaint that a crime has been committed. Why didn't the ED wait for the outcome of the complaint before attaching the property?” the court asked the counsel.

In response, ED's counsel Vishnu argued that, as per the ruling in Vijay Madhanlal Choudhary, the agency has the authority to act on a complaint filed by an individual. He further contended that Shankar had not suffered any harm due to the ED's action, and therefore, the attachment order did not require interference.

The court directed the ED to file its counter-affidavit and adjourned the hearing to April 21.

Case Title: S Shankar v. The Deputy Director

Case No: WP 8352 of 2025