High COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [Special Original .Jurisdictionl W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026 Thiru. R. Girirajan, / bjp president Nainar nagenthiren,
IN 111G11 COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[Special Original .Jurisdictionl W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026
Thiru. R. Girirajan, M161,
S/o. Late C. Radhakrishnan,
Number 367, Anna Arivalayam,
369, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai — 600018. Petitioner
-Vs-
l . The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home Department,
Secretariat, Chennai — 600009.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Metro Wing,
Egmore,
Chennai – 60008.
3. The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Police, Chennai – 600004.
4. Director of Enforcement,
Rep, by its Assistant Director, Shastri Bhavan, Yd floor, 3Block, B-Wing, No.26, Haddows road, Chennai 600006.
5. Thiru. N. Nainar Nagendran, S/o. Nainar Devar,
State president for the
Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP),
MLA in Thirunelveli Assembly Constituency,
Residing at No. 540, Saint Thomas Street,
Perumalpuram,
Palayamkottai Taluk,
Thirunelveli – 627007.
6. Thiru. Kesava Vinayagam,
S/o. Kesavan,
Former State General Secretary (Organisation) for the
Tamilnadu Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP),
Residing at No. 9, Kamalalayam,
Vaithya Raman Salai, T Nagar (BJP Hqrs.,) Permanent Address:
No. 73, CA Sathana Chola Rajapuram Salai, Uraiyur, Trichy.
Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF Thiru. R. GIRIRAJAN
I, R. Girirajan, S/o. Late C. Radhakrishnan, Hindu, aged about 61 years, official address at No. 367, Anna Arivalayam, 369, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai- 6000018, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
1. I am the Petitioner herein and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. I am a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Secretary of the Bylaw Amendment Committee of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), and a practising Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
2. It is submitted that the 5 th Respondent, Thiru. N. Nainar Nagendran, serving as a state president for the Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Member of the Legislative Assembly of Thirunelveli Assembly Constituency, and 6th Respondent, Thiru. Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary (Organisation) for the Tamil Nadu Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
3. It is submitted that the 5 th and 6 th respondents involved in the electoral offence case, one Mrs. S. Senthil Balamani, an Assistant Agricultural Officer, who report d the transportation of a large sum of money, Rs.3,98,91,500/-, intended for voter inducement. The incident occurred on April 6, 2024. The suspects, identified as Sathish, Pcrumal, and Navecn, were found in possession of the money in coach Al, seats 26, 27, and 28 of the Nellai Express at Tambaram railway station. They admitted to carrying the money to distribute to voters in Tirunelveli on behalfofMr.Nainar Nagendran, who was BJP candidate of Tirunelveli Parliament Constituency. Originally, an FIR was registered by the Tambaram Police Station in Cr.No. 177/2024 and later it was transferred to CBCID and Crime number was reassigned by the CBCID in Cr. No. 04/2024 UIs. 171 (C), 171 (E), 171 (F), 188 IPC and taken up for further investigation in the said crime number.
4. It is submitted that, based on the facts and materials collected during the investigation. Further, I have reliably understood that the CBCID has altered the sections from 17 I(C), of1PC to Sections 171(C), 171 171(F), 120(b) & 109, 420 r/w 511 & 188 of1PC.
5. It is submitted that the acts alleged against the 5 th and 6d1 Respondents constitute scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including other offences under the Indian Penal Code such as criminal misconduct by the 5 th and 6th Respondents by transporting the money for the purpose of distribution to the voters.
6. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed that the said illegal cash was intended to influence voters in the Tirunelveli Parliamentary Constituency and was allegedly transported on behalf of Mr. Nainar Nagendran, a political functionary.
7. It is stibniittcd that the materials collected during the investigation disclose commission or serious cognizable offences, including conspiracy and cheating, thereby attracting provisions relating to “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(l)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
8. It is submitted that despite the existence of clear materials indicating the generation and use of proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to register ECIR and initiate proceedings under the PMLA Act, 2002.
9. It is submitted that such inaction on the part of the Enforcement Directorate is arbitraty, illegal, and contrary to the settled position of law that once a scheduled offence involving proceeds of crime is made out, initiation of proceedings under the PMLAAct becomes mandatory.
10. I submit that the failure of the Respondents to act is influenced by extraneous considerations, including political factors, thereby defeating the very object of the PWA Act, 2002.
I l . It is submitted that the offences disclosed in the present case squarely fall within the ambit of scheduled offences, and therefore, the Enforcement Directorate is statutorily bound to register an ECIR and proceed with investigation
12. It is submitted that the CBCID maintains an official website where FIRS are uploaded and made available in the public domain in the interest of transparency.
Further, I have reliably understood that the CBCID has altered the sections from 171 (C), of1PC to Sections 171(C), 171(E), 171 120(b) & 109, 420 r/w 511
& 188 of IPC, which constitutes the schedule offence under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act,2002. The gist of the charges is as follows;
GIST OF THE CHARGES:
Cr. No. 4 of 2024 — Thiru. N. Nainar Nagendran, serving as a state president for the Tamilnadu Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Member of the Legislative Assembly of Thirunelveli Assembly Constituency, and 6th Respondent, Thiru. Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary (Organisation) for the Tamilnadu Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) political party — Alleged to be involved in the electoral offence case, Mrs.S.Senthil Balamani, an Assistant Agricultural Officer, who reported the transportation of a large sum of money, Rs.3,98,91,500/-, intended for voter inducement.
13. It is submitted that despite the existence of clear materials indicating the generation and use of proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to register ECIR and initiate proceedings under the PMLA Act, 2002.
14. It is submitted that such inaction on the part of the Enforcement Directorate is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the settled position of law that once a scheduled offence involving proceeds of crime is made out, initiation of proceedings under the PMLAAct becomes mandatory.
15. It is submitted that the offence disclosed in the present case squarely falls within the ambit of the scheduled offences; the registration of case, progress of investigation and filing of final report are not secret documents but available in the public domain.
Hence, Enforcement Directorate ought to have registered the Inforrnation Report) as pcr the PMLA Act,2002. Failure on the part of the Enforcement
Directorate on political consideration will certainly confirm the jurisdiction of this Constitution Court to pass or issue an appropriate direction to register ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) and proceed in accordance with law.
16. It is submitted that the existence of such an FIR itself establishes the registration of predicate offences which will fall within the schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
17. It is submitted that once such predicate offences are registered, the Enforcement Directorate is statutorily empowered and obligated to investigate the offence of money laundering arising out of the said scheduled offences.
18. It is submitted that, despite the existence of such predicate offences and the availability of substantial materials indicating generation of proceeds of crime, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to register an ECIR and initiate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
19. It is submitted that despite the existence of these serious allegations and FIR, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to discharge its statutory duty of investigating the offence of money laundering.
20. It is submitted that the failure of Respondents 1 and 2 to register an ECIR and initiate an investigation into the laundering of proceeds ofcrime is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the very object of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which aims to prevent laundering of illicit money and to attach and confiscate properties derived from criminal activities.
21. It is submitted that the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to act despite the availability of FIR undermines and frustrates the object of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In such circumstances, intervention of this I-Ion’ble Court is necessary to ensure that the statutory authorities discharge their duties in accordance with law.
22. It is submitted that the cause of action for filing the present writ petition arises due to the inaction of the Enforcement Directorate in exercising its statutory powers to investigate offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
23. It is submitted that unless this Hon’ble Court intervenes and directs the authorities to initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the illegal proceeds generated through corruption may remain uninvestigated, thereby seriously affecting public interest.
24. It is submitted that since the above-mentioned FIR relates to a member of the ruling party at the union government, the continued inaction of the Enforcement Directorate has compelled the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court.
25. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court, in W.P. No. 74 of 2026, recently passed an order directing registration of FIR against a sitting Minister based on materials shared by the Enforcement Directorate with the State authorities. However, it is surprising that the Enforcement Directorate has not taken similar action in respect of 5 th and 6th respondents, who are already facing FIR for offences that fall within the ambit of schedule offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
26. It is submitted that the 5 th Respondent, Thiru. N. Nainar Nagendran, serving as a state president for the Tamilnadu Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Member of the
Legislative Assembly of Thirunclvcli Assembly Constituency, and 6th Respondent, Thiru. Kesava Vinayagam, former State General Secretary (Organisation) for the Taniilnadu Bharathiya Janata Party (BJP) political party, which is presently the ruling party at the Union Government, and the continued inaction of the Enforcement Directorate gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that political considerations have influenced the failure to initiate action.
27. It is submitted that the rule of law mandates that investigative agencies act independently and in accordance with statutory duties. Failure to register an ECIR despite the existence of prima facie materials amounts to dereliction of a statutory duty and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. It is further submitted that this is a fit case for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to register an ECIR and proceed with an investigation into the proceeds of crime.
29. It is submitted that the provisions of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are not applicable to the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002, the same being a self-contained special enactment. It is further submitted that I have no other efficacious alternative remedy except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
30. It is further submitted that I have not filed any other writ petition or proceedings before this Hon’ble Court or before any other High Court or the Hon’ ble Supreme Court seeking the same relief on the same cause of action.
31. It is further submitted that the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information, and that no material facts have been suppressed.
Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this I-Ion’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandatnus directing the 4 th Respondent to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the 5th and 6th Respondents and conduct a thorough investigation into the proceeds of crime generated through the transportation and intended distribution of illegal cash for the purpose of voter inducement, and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on this day March 2026 and signed his name in my presence.
Advocate, Chennai
