The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court order closing filmmaker Akash Baskaran's petition challenging an Enforcement Directorate (ED) search at his premises in connection with the alleged TASMAC money-laundering case, according to The Bar Bulletin and LiveLaw.

Source: The Bar Bulletin

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana dismissed Baskaran's challenge to the High Court's June 2 order, which had left it open to him to raise all grounds against the search before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal. The case is Akash Baskaran v. The Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 12600/2026, with the order dated November 2, 2026.

Source: LiveLaw

The ED had searched the premises of Baskaran, P. R. Rajesh Kumar and three others on May 16, 17 and 18, 2025, under an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) dated October 3, 2023. The High Court noted that Rajesh Kumar's earlier petition against the same searches had been closed on December 10, 2025, with liberty to raise all objections before the Appellate Tribunal, and it adopted the same course for Baskaran.

Appearing for Baskaran, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued, as a submission, that his client stood on a different footing: he had no adjudication order he could challenge before the Tribunal, and the notice issued to him had been withdrawn, leaving him without an effective forum. Counsel also pointed to the High Court's observations that the ED had produced an undated and unsigned explanation note and that no incriminating material was in its possession when the search was authorised — submissions the ED's case disputes through the proceedings, and which the Supreme Court did not decide as findings of fact.

The Bench questioned why Baskaran could not raise the legality of the search before the statutory forum, with Justice Bagchi observing that he could argue that the reasonable belief behind the search was inadequate or illegal. The Court distinguished a challenge to search and seizure from later proceedings on provisional attachment of property, and ultimately dismissed Baskaran's challenge, leaving his objections open before the Tribunal.

Source: LiveLaw