Madras High Court rejects ED plea to transfer Radhakrishnan trial

The Enforcement Action

The Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, on 5 August 2026 dismissed a petition by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to transfer the long-running disproportionate-assets trial of former Tamil Nadu minister and sitting MLA Anitha R. Radhakrishnan from the Sessions Court at Thoothukudi to the Special Court for cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) at Madurai. The order, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 in Crl OP (MD) No.3792 of 2026, was passed by a Bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan.

The ED had argued that the predicate corruption case and its own money-laundering complaint, arising from the same facts, should be heard together by the special court. The Bench declined. It held that the trial before the Thoothukudi court, numbered Spl.C.No.3 of 2019, had advanced too far to be moved, observing that sending it to another court "would cause real prejudice" at this stage.

The matter traces back to an FIR registered by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), Thoothukudi, in 2006, alleging that Radhakrishnan had acquired assets disproportionate to known sources of income, put at roughly 2.08 crore rupees, during 2001 to 2006. The ED later registered its own case, ECIR No. CEZO-II/21/2020 dated 22 December 2020, at its Chennai Zonal Office, treating the alleged disproportionate assets as the predicate offence for a money-laundering investigation.

Radhakrishnan and the co-accused contested the transfer. They argued the special court had not taken cognisance of the ED complaint and that the agency had not obtained the sanction required to prosecute a public servant. The court recorded these submissions and ruled in their favour on the narrow procedural question, without deciding the merits of either the corruption case or the money-laundering allegation.

How the Scheme Worked

According to the record before the court, the case began as a disproportionate-assets matter, not a market or deposit scheme. The DVAC alleges that between 2001 and 2006, when Radhakrishnan held public office, assets were accumulated that the agency says outstripped lawful income by about 2.08 crore rupees. That allegation, still to be tested at trial, is the foundation on which every later step rests.

The predicate case moved slowly through the criminal process. Per the earlier record, the DVAC filed charge sheets in 2008, 2010 and 2013, and the trial court framed charges in 2017 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the provisions dealing with a public servant holding assets disproportionate to known income. The trial then proceeded as Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 before the Thoothukudi Sessions Court.

The money-laundering layer came far later. The ED opened ECIR No. CEZO-II/21/2020 in December 2020, some fourteen years after the original FIR, on the footing that disproportionate assets can constitute "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA. In an earlier round, the Madras High Court in August 2024 declined to quash that ECIR, holding that possession of disproportionate assets could ground an ED investigation and that the statute shifts the burden to the accused to show the property is untainted.

By the time the ED sought to move the trial, the corruption case was nearly finished. The August 2026 order records that the prosecution had examined 79 witnesses, the defence had examined 6 witnesses, and 312 exhibits in all had been marked. Both sides had closed their evidence, the prosecution had completed its arguments and the defence had argued "in substantial part."

The procedural trigger for the dispute was timing. The special court had, per the order, issued only a pre-cognisance notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and had, in September 2025, asked the ED for sanction to prosecute a public servant. Nearly a year on, the court noted, that sanction had not been produced, so "the Special Court was not likely to take cognisance." The ED's bid to consolidate the two trials ran into that gap.

The Law Invoked

The order turns on Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. That provision governs how a case connected to a scheduled, or predicate, offence can be committed or transferred to the special court trying the money-laundering complaint. The Bench read it to operate only once the special court has taken cognisance of the offence, which had not happened here.

The predicate offence sits under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, specifically Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e), which penalise a public servant found in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to known sources of income. The ED's parallel action rests on the PMLA definitions of "proceeds of crime" and the offence of money-laundering, with the statute's reverse burden placing on the accused the task of showing the assets are lawful.

The procedural notice the special court issued was under Section 223 of the BNSS, the new criminal procedure code, which requires an accused to be heard before cognisance is taken on a complaint. The requirement of prior sanction to prosecute a serving or former public servant is a further statutory safeguard that, on the court's reading, had not yet been satisfied.

What Happens Next

The order leaves the corruption trial where it is, before the Thoothukudi Sessions Court, to be concluded on the evidence already recorded. Because arguments were nearly complete, a judgment in Spl.C.No.3 of 2019 is the immediate next step in that case, and the outcome is for the trial court to decide on the merits.

The ED's money-laundering complaint remains pending before the special PMLA court at Madurai. On the court's reasoning, that court can take cognisance only after the sanction question is resolved and the statutory notice stage is complete. The ED retains the option to produce the sanction and to seek transfer afresh at the appropriate stage, and it may challenge the present order before a higher forum. An order of a High Court of this kind is ordinarily open to challenge before the Supreme Court.

At this stage everything remains an allegation to be tested. A chargesheet, FIR or provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. Neither the corruption charge nor the money-laundering allegation has been adjudicated on the merits.

What It Means

For ordinary readers the case is a clear window into how India's two-track enforcement system works. A corruption or disproportionate-assets case is investigated and tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act by state vigilance agencies, while the ED can open a separate PMLA case treating the same alleged gains as "proceeds of crime". The two proceedings run in parallel and, as this order shows, do not automatically merge.

The ruling also underlines the procedural checks built around the PMLA. The requirement that a special court take cognisance before a transfer, the notice stage under the BNSS, and the need for sanction to prosecute a public servant are all safeguards that shape when and how an ED case can proceed. The practical lesson for anyone following enforcement news is to distinguish an ECIR or an attachment, which is an allegation at the investigation stage, from a conviction, which only a court can record after a full trial.

There is no direct investor-protection angle in this particular matter, but the underlying transparency principle is the same one that protects depositors and investors elsewhere: always verify the stage of any action before drawing conclusions. An ED complaint is a beginning, not a verdict.

FAQ

Does this mean the people named are guilty?

No. A chargesheet, FIR or provisional attachment contains allegations, not findings of guilt; the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and due process continues. The Madras High Court decided only a procedural question about which court should try the case, and did not rule on whether Anitha Radhakrishnan or any co-accused committed any offence.

What exactly did the Madras High Court order?

The court dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's petition to transfer the disproportionate-assets trial from the Thoothukudi Sessions Court to the Special PMLA Court at Madurai. It held the request was premature because the special court had not taken cognisance, and that moving a nearly finished trial would cause prejudice to the accused.

What is the difference between the corruption case and the ED case?

The corruption case, filed by the Tamil Nadu vigilance agency, alleges disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ED's separate case, ECIR No. CEZO-II/21/2020, treats those alleged assets as "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA. They are distinct proceedings before different courts, running in parallel.

Can this order be challenged?

Yes. An order passed by a High Court in such matters can ordinarily be challenged before the Supreme Court. The ED also retains the option of producing the required sanction and renewing its request at the appropriate procedural stage, once the special court is in a position to take cognisance.

How can I verify the stage of an enforcement action?

Read the official record. Court orders are published on portals such as Indian Kanoon and the High Courts' own websites, and they state plainly whether a matter is at the FIR, ECIR, chargesheet, cognisance or trial stage. That distinction, allegation versus finding, is the single most important fact to check before drawing any conclusion.

Where can I read the official order?

The underlying ED proceeding is documented in the Madras High Court's 2024 order on the ECIR, available on Indian Kanoon. The 5 August 2026 transfer ruling is reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 365 in Crl OP (MD) No.3792 of 2026.

This report is based on the official Madras High Court order in the ED money-laundering matter (ECIR No. CEZO-II/21/2020), available on Indian Kanoon. The 5 August 2026 transfer ruling was surfaced via coverage in LiveLaw.