The Supreme Court on Monday declined to interfere with a Madras High Court order closing filmmaker Akash Baskaran’s petition challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) search at his premises in connection with the alleged TASMAC money laundering case.

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 assailing the search proceedings before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal.

The ED had searched the premises of Baskaran, P.R. Rajesh Kumar and three others on May 16, 17 and 18, 2025, pursuant to an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) dated October 3, 2023.

Baskaran had challenged the search before the Madras High Court, questioning the ED’s authority to conduct it. The High Court noted that Rajesh Kumar’s earlier petition challenging the same searches had been closed on December 10, 2025, with liberty to raise all objections before the Appellate Tribunal. It adopted the same course in Baskaran’s case and closed his petition, leaving him free to pursue his objections before the Tribunal.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for Baskaran, argued that his client’s case was different from Rajesh Kumar’s. He submitted that Baskaran had no adjudication order against him that he could challenge before the Appellate Tribunal. According to counsel, the notice issued to Baskaran had also been withdrawn, leaving him without an effective forum to challenge the legality of the search.

The bench questioned why Baskaran could not raise the legality of the search before the statutory forum. It indicated that he could contend before the Tribunal that the reasonable belief forming the basis of the search was inadequate or illegal.

Counsel referred to the proceedings before the High Court, during which the ED had been asked to produce the material forming the basis of its authorisation for the search. He submitted that the ED had produced an undated and unsigned explanation note, which, according to him, did not disclose material sufficient to form a reasonable belief that Baskaran was involved in money laundering.

He further relied on the High Court’s observations concerning the absence of incriminating material when the search was authorised. The Supreme Court, however, distinguished the challenge to the search and seizure from the subsequent proceedings relating to provisional attachment of property.

The bench ultimately dismissed Baskaran’s challenge and declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision to leave the objections to the search open for consideration before the statutory forum.