In a setback for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Principal Sessions Court in Thoothukudi has dismissed the plea of the central agency to assist the vigilance directorate in the disproportionate assets (DA) case against DMK heavyweight and Tamil Nadu Fisheries and Animal Husbandry Minister Anitha R Radhakrishnan.

The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) of Tamil Nadu had filed a case in 2006 against Radhakrishnan and six of his family members of amassing assets to the tune of Rs 2.26 crore, disproportionate to his known sources of income when he was a Minister in the then AIADMK government of J Jayalalithaa. The case under the Prevention of Corruption Act was filed soon after the DMK returned to power in the assembly election.

A strongman in the southern Thoothukudi district with great influence in adjoining areas, he later switched over to the DMK. Winning the 2021 election, he had become a minister in the Stalin ministry. The DVAC had filed the final report in 2013 and the trial is on with examination witnesses also nearing completion.

Even as the trial had reached an advanced stage, the ED last year filed a petition under sections 301 (2) and 302 of the CrPC, to step in and assist the prosecution by way of filing documents and written submission.

Rejecting the ED’s petition as an ‘intereference’, the court said the central agency is neither an aggrieved party nor an interested person. “Apprehension of the petitioner (Enforcement Directorate) that the State had a vested interest since Mr Radhakrishnan is a Minister is not acceptable,” Principal Sessions Judge K Ayyappan observed in his ruling. Further, the court made it clear that a third party could not be permitted to assist the public prosecutor in the face of stout opposition for the participation of the ED when the case is being conducted in all fairness and seriousness.

“On a mere apprehension, it is not open for the ED to approach the court with the petition,” the judge said adding, “Sections 301 (2) and 302 of CrPC are not meant for another investigating agency to interfere in the investigations done by the state agency. It amounts to interference in the federal structure enunciated in the constitution and the separation of powers.” It was further pointed out that of the 108 witnesses, 71 had been examined and of them only three had not supported the prosecution case. On the date of their examination, Radhakrishnan was not even a Minister.

The ED had attempted to step into the case faced by Radhakrishnan after it had arrested in June last year former DMK Minister V Senthil Balaji who is still waging a legal battle for bail.