Case agaunst Tr. K.P. Anbalagan, Formerly Minister for the Higher Education Department, by dmk.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS [Special Original Jurisdiction] W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026 Thiru. R. Girirajan, M/61
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
[Special Original Jurisdiction]
W.P.(Cr1). No. of 2026
Thiru. R. Girirajan, M/61
,
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 Director, Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Conuption (DVAC),
No.293, Road,
Ramapuram, Collectors Nagar, Alandur, Chennai – 600016.
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. Tr. K.P. Anbalagan,
Formerly Minister for the Higher Education Department,
Residing at No. 1/136A,
Keragodahalli (Village & Post),
Karimangalam Taluk, Dharmapuri-635111.
. Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF Mr. 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, Chennai6000018, 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 5th Respondent, Thiru K.P. Anbalagan, sewed as the Minister for Higher Education Department in the Government of Tamil Nadu during the relevant period and was a public servant within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. It is submitted that during his tenure as Minister, several serious allegations of corruption, financial irregularities, and abuse of official position have surfaced in connection with the functioning of Higher Education Departments. It has also been alleged that the 5th Respondent accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income and was involved in the acceptance of illegal gratification. Various complaints and materials have been placed before the competent authorities, indicating large-scale financial irregularities and the generation of illicit wealth.
4. It is submitted that the FIR was registered by the 2 nd Respondent/l)irectorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, in FIR No. 03/AC/2022 u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Sec. 109 IPC r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1) (b), 12 r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac against the 5 th respondent and his a family members, highlighting large-scale corruption and misappropriation of public funds. Further, he enriched himself illicitly and acquired properties and pecuniary resources in his name and in the names of his family members, relatives, and others, which are disproportionate to his known source of income.
5. It is submitted that the acts alleged against the 5th Respondent constitute scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code such as criminal misconduct by a public servant, criminal conspiracy and cheating.
6. It is submitted that the illegal gains generated through the aforesaid offences clearly constitute “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(I)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
7. It is submitted that wherever proceeds of crime are generated from scheduled offences, the Directorate of Enforcement is empowered to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), investigate the offence of money laundering and trace, attach and confiscate tainted assets.
8. It is submitted that the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) maintains an official website where all FIR are uploaded and made available in the public domain in the interest of transparency. The offcial portal contains details of FIR registered against the 5th Respondent for offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act which are as follows;
GIST OF THE CHARGES:
1. FIR No: 03/AC/2022 filed by V & AC Dharmapuri – Tr.K.P.Anbalagan, former
Minister, now MLA, Palacode Assembly Constituency, Dharmapuri District and others
Allegation of possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of income.
PENDING TRIAL CASES:
Sl No.
Case Identity Number, date of
registration
Name of accused and gist of charge for which charge sheet has been laid.
Name of the Court and
c.c./S.c. No
Date of next hearing/
Stage
1.
FIR No: 03/AC/2022 filed by V & AC
Dharmapuri
Tr.K.P.Anba1agan, former Minister, now
MLA, Palacode
Assembly
Constituency,
Dharmapuri District and others Allegation of possession of
assets disproportionate to
the known sources of income.
Hon ‘ble PDSJ
Court,
Dharmapuri Spl.CC.N0.
02/2023.
The case stands posted to
27.03.2026 for call on pending Cri.MP.Nos. 04/2025, 05/2025,
06/2025 & 07/2025.
9. It is submitted that once the investigating agency finds the corruption involved after the due preliminary enquiry registers the FIR or after the investigation files a final report disclosing the bribe money, it would automatically gonstitute “proceeds of crime”
within the meaning of Sec 2 (1) (U) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002.
In such circumstances, no further probe is required to establish that the public servant who received the illegal gratification, or possess wealth disproportionate to hié known source of income, is in possession of proceeds of crime. It has been held in the case of
Y. Balaji V. Karthik Desai and Others, (2024) 19 SCC 625, the relevant portion is extracted herein below;
“145. Once an information relating to the acquisition of huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter ofpublic employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report. This is because “acquisition ” is an activity amounting to money laundering and the illegal gratification acquired by a public servant represents “proceeds of crime “, generated through a criminal activity in respect ofa scheduled offence. Therefore, it does not require any expedition, much less a fishing expedition for someone to say that the receipt ofbribe money is an act of money laundering”.
• 10. It is submitted that in the view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is the duty of the Enforcement Directorate to register the information report. In the case on hand, 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 ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) as per the PlvfLA 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 appropriate direction to register ECIR (Enforcement Case Information
Report) and proceed in accordance with law.
11. It is submitted that the existence of such FIRS itself establishes the registration of predicate offences which will fall within the schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. It is submitted that the petitioner and several public spirited persons have submitted complaints before the competent authorities detailing the corrupt practices and illegal enrichment of the 5th Respondent. However, no effective steps have been taken by the Enforcement Directorate to initiate proceedings under the PVILA.
15. It is submitted that the offences disclosed in the tabulated FIRS involve grave abuse of public office, diversion of public funds and generation of illegal wealth through corrupt practices. Such illegal gains clearly fall within the ambit of “proceeds of crime” under Section 2(l)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
16. It is submitted that despite the existence of these serious allegations and tabulated FIRS, the Enforcement Directorate has failed to discharge its statutory duty of investigating the offence of money laundering.
17. It is submitted that the failure of Respondents 1 and 2 to register an ECIR and initiate investigation into the laundering of proceeds of crime is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the very object of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which aims to prevent laundering ofillicit money and to attach and confiscate properties derived from criminal activities.
18. It is submitted that the allegations mentioned in the tabulated cases pertain to persons who held high public office and involve offences of substantial magnitude. The gravity of the allegations warrants immediate investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
19. It is submitted that the failure of the Enforcement Directorate to act despite the availability of tabulated FIRS undermines and frustrates the object of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. In such circumstances, intervention of this Hon’ble Court is necessary to ensure that the statutory authorities discharge their duties in accordance with law.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. It is submitted that since the above-mentioned tabulated FIRS relate to former
Ministers belongipg to the AIADMK government, the continued inaction of the Enforcement Directorate has compelled the petitioner to approach this Hon’ble Court.
23. 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 former Ministers of the AIADM_K who are already facing FIRS for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
24. It is submitted that the 5th respondent belongs to a AIADMK political party which is presently in alliance with 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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 stibmitted 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.
28. 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.
29. 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 Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 4th Respondent to register an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the 5th Respondent and conduct a thorough investigation into the proceeds of crime generated through acts of corruption, bribery and accumulation of disproportionate assets, and to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Solemnly affirmed at Chennai on day March 2026 and signed his name in my presence.
Before Me
Advocate, Chennai
