ED wants T.N. Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan’s assets case moved from Thoothukudi to Madurai

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) approached the Madras High Court to transfer the disproportionate assets case against Fisheries Minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and her family members from the Principal Sessions Court in Thoothukudi to a court of similar rank in Madurai; as only the latter was designated as a special court to try offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

First Division Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Thursday, March 12, 2026, ordered notices to be issued to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) as well as other individual respondents, which may be returned within four weeks, asking them to respond to the ED’s request for transfer. The orders were issued after hearing special public prosecutor P. Sidharthan at the ED.

Making a detailed affidavit in support of the transfer petition, ED Deputy Director Nalini Krishnan said that Mr. Radhakrishnan served as Member of the Legislative Assembly between May 14, 2001 and May 12, 2006 after being elected from Tiruchendur constituency. He then served as Minister of Livestock Department for the first year and served as Minister of Housing for the remainder of his term.

The total value of material resources and properties owned by the minister, his wife R. Jeyagandhi, brothers R. Shanmuganandan and R. Sivanandan and sons R. Ananda Padmanaban, R. Ananda Ramakrishnan and R. Ananda Maheswaran was only ₹ 23.36 lakh. ₹6.86 crore as on 1 March 2006.

Even though the minister and his family members were able to generate income of ₹ 5.94 crore during the check period and their expenses during this period were alleged to be ₹ 1.39 crore, they failed to account for the rest of the properties worth ₹ 2 crore and hence the DVAC had filed a chargesheet against all of them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on July 18, 2013.

Later, the ED registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under PMLA based on the DVAC case and filed a petition in the Thoothukudi court last year to transfer the case in the disproportionate goods case to the principal sessions court in Madurai as only the latter was designated as a special court to hear PMLA offences.

However, on December 11, 2025, the Thoothukudi court rejected ED’s transfer plea on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Article 44 of the PMLA. Now challenging the rejection before the Supreme Court, the ED said that Section 44 clearly allows such a transfer and hence the Thoothukudi sessions court’s failure to do so was against the provisions of special legislation.

Mr. Sidharthan submitted that Article 44(1)(c) provides that if a court recognizing a scheduled offense differs from a special court recognizing the offense of money laundering, the former shall, on the application of a competent authority, refer the case relating to the scheduled offense to the special court so that the trial can proceed from the stage at which it was committed.

“Therefore, the Thoothukudi Principal Sessions Court erred in refusing to transfer the case to the special court at Madurai,” he alleged.