By News Desk 
ED “Crossing All Limits”, Says Supreme Court
In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court of India criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for overstepping its jurisdiction in the ongoing investigation involving the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The apex court observed that the ED was violating the federal structure of the country, asserting that the agency was “crossing all limits.”
The matter was heard by a bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice A.G. Masih, following a petition by the Tamil Nadu government challenging the ED’s actions against TASMAC.
Background: ED Raids and Allegations Against TASMAC
According to reports, the ED had accused TASMAC—a state-run entity responsible for liquor distribution—of corruption in issuing liquor licenses. Based on these allegations, the ED conducted raids at TASMAC’s headquarters, seizing official devices and mobile phones from employees.
However, the Tamil Nadu government had already initiated action against corruption within the system. Between 2014 and 2021, the state had filed 41 FIRs against various liquor vendors allegedly involved in bribery. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of the state, emphasized that the state itself had taken proactive steps to curb corruption.
Supreme Court Questions ED’s Authority
During the hearing on May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court posed tough questions to the ED:
“How can there be a criminal case against a government corporation? You can file charges against individuals, but not against a public body,” the court remarked.
The court accused the ED of interfering unnecessarily in a matter that was already under state jurisdiction. It stated that the federal structure of governance was being undermined by such actions.
ED Claims Massive Fraud, Court Stays Further Action
Representing the ED, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that the case involved a fraud of over ₹1,000 crore, and that politicians were allegedly being shielded from prosecution. He defended the agency’s involvement by calling it a serious economic crime.
In response, CJI Gavai countered:
“Where is the crime? The state has already filed FIRs and taken action. Why is the ED intervening without necessity?”
Following this exchange, the Supreme Court stayed the ED’s ongoing actions and issued a notice demanding a formal explanation from the agency. The court also took exception to the ED’s approach, warning against overreach and misuse of investigative powers.
ED Promises a Detailed Response
ASG Raju denied that the ED had exceeded its limits but assured the bench that the agency would submit a detailed affidavit clarifying its actions and justifying its involvement.
Conclusion: A Wake-Up Call for Investigative Agencies
This case underscores the Supreme Court’s growing concerns over investigative agencies potentially misusing their powers and infringing on state responsibilities. By putting a hold on the ED’s intervention, the court reaffirmed the importance of maintaining federal balance and ensuring that due legal process is respected.