On Friday, the Madras High Court intervened, putting a hold on the enforcement of summons directed at private contractors involved in the ongoing Enforcement Directorate investigations linked to the sand mining money laundering case.

Justices SS Sundar and Sunder Mohan granted a stay following a plea by A Rajkuamr, partner of RS Construction, Shanmugam Ramachandran, and K Rethinam. Additionally, the court had earlier halted the enforcement of summonses directed at the District Collectors pertaining to the ongoing investigation.

Rajkumar asserted that the Enforcement Directorate's summons against him not only constituted a severe and explicit misuse of legal procedures but also encroached upon his fundamental rights as guaranteed by Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

Rajkumar argued that he had no ties to the four FIRs forming the basis of the Enforcement Directorate's investigation, nor was he remotely linked to the allegations within them. He further contended that the ED's swift registration of the ECIR seemed hasty and driven by undisclosed motives, reasons for which remained exclusively known to the agency.

He additionally highlighted a separate plea lodged by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the Enforcement Directorate's summonses to the District Collectors, using it as evidence that the ED lacked the authority to pursue the investigation. Rajkumar emphasized that the High Court, while halting the ED summonses, had characterized the agency's actions as a "fishing expedition," noting their lack of substantial evidence or material to support the investigation.

In light of these factors, Rajkumar contended that the Enforcement Directorate lacked the jurisdiction to carry forward the investigation and that the summonses contradicted established legal principles. Consequently, he sought the annulment of the ECIR, arguing that it held no legal validity.

In opposition to the pleas, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, supported by the Special Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate, N Ramesh, contended that the ED needed specific clarifications from the petitioners regarding the materials already gathered. Presently, the ED stated an inability to confirm whether the petitioners were being investigated as suspects or witnesses.

Furthermore, the ED argued that the ECIR held no legal standing as it was an internal document and therefore could not be legally contested in court.

Case Title: A Rajkumar v Union of India

Case NO: WP 35515 of 2023