Mon Aug 18 14:06:08 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary of the text and a rewritten news article based on it, focusing on the key events and statements.
**Summary:**
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, addressed concerns regarding its oral remarks against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) during a hearing of a case filed by Tamil Nadu challenging the ED’s investigation into the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The CJI clarified that the court’s comments were based on facts and not personal bias. The ED’s counsel expressed concern that these remarks were creating a negative perception. The case revolves around the ED’s investigation and raids on TASMAC, with the court questioning whether a corporation can be held criminally liable and accusing the ED of overstepping its bounds and violating India’s federal structure. Tamil Nadu argues they already have FIRs against individual operators, while the ED claims a large-scale fraud involving politicians.
**News Article:**
**Supreme Court Defends Remarks Against ED in TASMAC Case, Cites Federal Structure Concerns**
**NEW DELHI, August 18, 2025** – The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, today addressed concerns regarding its previous oral remarks directed at the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning its investigation into the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The clarification came during a hearing of a petition filed by the state of Tamil Nadu challenging the ED’s actions.
Chief Justice Gavai emphasized that any adverse remarks made by the court were “dispassionate” and based solely on the facts presented. This statement was made in response to the ED’s counsel, who voiced concerns that the court’s comments were creating a negative public perception of the agency.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Tamil Nadu, intervened, stating that the perception of the ED was already present in the public domain, regardless of the court’s comments.
The case stems from the ED’s investigation and subsequent raids on TASMAC, prompted by allegations of a ₹1,000 crore fraud involving politicians. The court has previously questioned the ED’s actions, with Chief Justice Gavai stating on May 22nd that the agency was “crossing all limits.”
The CJI further emphasized concerns that the ED’s actions against TASMAC were violating the federal structure of the country. He questioned how a corporation itself could be held criminally liable when individual operators were already under investigation by the state government, which had registered 41 First Information Reports (FIRs) against liquor outlet operators over allegations of corruption.
The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, maintains that the investigation is justified due to the large-scale fraud and the involvement of politicians. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing TASMAC, has argued that the ED’s actions included cloning the phones of employees, raising privacy concerns.
The case highlights the ongoing tensions between the central government’s investigative agencies and state governments, particularly concerning the balance of power within India’s federal structure. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in overseeing the actions of investigative agencies and ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.
First Piper 