ED needs T.N. Minister Anitha Radhakrishnan’s property case moved from Thoothukudi to Madurai

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has approached the Madras Excessive Court docket for transferring a disproportionate property case in opposition to Fisheries Minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and his members of the family from the Principal Periods Court docket in Thoothukudi to a courtroom of comparable rank in Madurai. The central company mentioned solely the latter had been designated as a particular courtroom to attempt offences below the Prevention of Cash Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan on Thursday (March 12, 2026) ordered notices, returnable by 4 weeks, to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) in addition to different particular person respondents, searching for their reply to the ED’s switch plea. The orders have been handed after listening to particular public prosecutor P. Sidharthan for the ED.

Submitting an in depth affidavit in assist of the switch petition, ED Assistant Director Nalini Krishnan mentioned, Mr. Radhakrishnan served as a Member of the Legislative Meeting between Could 14, 2001, and Could 12, 2006, after being elected from Tiruchendur constituency. Then, he was Minister for the Animal Husbandry Division for the primary yr and served as Housing Minister for the remainder of the tenure.

‘Property disproportionate’

The entire worth of the pecuniary assets and properties possessed by the Minister, his spouse R. Jeyagandhi, brothers R. Shanmuganandan and R. Sivanandan, and sons R. Ananda Padmanaban, R. Ananda Ramakrishnan, and R. Ananda Maheswaran was solely ₹23.36 lakh as on Could 14, 2001. Nonetheless, the worth of their pecuniary assets and properties had elevated to ₹6.86 crore as on March 1, 2006.

Although the Minister and his members of the family have been in a position to account for an revenue of ₹5.94 crore through the test interval and their bills throughout that interval was claimed to be ₹1.39 crore, they have been unable to account for the remainder of the over ₹2 crore price properties and therefore, the DVAC had filed a chargesheet in opposition to all of them below the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on July 18, 2013.

Thereafter, the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Info Report (ECIR) below the PMLA, on the premise of the DVAC case, and filed a petition earlier than the Thoothukudi courtroom final yr to switch the trial within the disproportionate property case to the principal classes courtroom in Madurai, as solely the latter had been designated as a particular courtroom for listening to PMLA offences.

Thoothukudi courtroom’s rejection of plea

Nonetheless, on December 11, 2025, the Thoothukudi courtroom rejected ED’s switch plea on the bottom that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed below Part 44 of the PMLA. Assailing the rejection earlier than the Excessive Court docket now, the ED mentioned, Part 44 clearly permits such switch and therefore, the failure of the Thoothukudi classes courtroom to take action was in opposition to the provisions of the particular laws.

Mr. Sidharthan mentioned, Part 44(1)(c) states that if a courtroom which had taken cognizance of a scheduled offence was apart from a particular courtroom, which had taken cognisance of the offence of cash laundering, the previous shall, on an utility by a reliable authority, commit the case referring to the scheduled offence to the particular courtroom in order that the listening to could possibly be continued from the stage at which it was dedicated.

“Subsequently, the Thoothukudi Principal Periods Court docket had erred in refusing to switch the case to the particular courtroom in Madurai,” he contended.