Read Time: 04 minutes
While dealing with a PIL petition related to this matter, court maintained that, lacking a legal basis, such a directive could not be issued
In a recent development, the Madras High Court has refused to issue direction to the Tamil Nadu government and the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) to transmit all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for simultaneous registration of Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, rejected the request for such a direction, emphasizing that neither the State government nor the DVAC possessed the legal authority to forward the FIRs to the ED. The bench articulated, "In the absence of any legal provision, direction cannot be issued in that regard," as they resolved a public interest litigation (PIL) petition.
The counsel for the petitioner R. Karthikeyan, argued that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act were categorized as offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and that the ED held the requisite competence to investigate, track, and trace unlawfully acquired assets. Consequently, he contended that the DVAC, as the initiating agency, had an obligation to notify the ED about all FIRs filed related to corruption.
On the contrary, the Advocate General informed the court that all FIRs registered by the DVAC were being dispatched to the appropriate courts and also made available on their website. He underscored that there was no established rule, regulation, or legal provision mandating the transmission of FIRs to the ED. The judges concurred with this position, particularly as the petitioner's counsel was unable to cite any such legal basis.
Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel alleged that the DVAC exercised selectivity in uploading FIRs online, refraining from publishing all of them. In response, the Advocate General denied the allegation, citing that some FIRs might not have been uploaded due to technical issues. He assured the court that steps would be taken to ensure the uploading of all FIRs. In light of this, the bench acknowledged the assurance, concluding the case.
Case Title: R.Karthikeyan V. Union of India and Others
Please Login or Register
