R. Anitha Radhakrishnan. File
| Photo Credit: B. Jothi Ramalingam
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has approached the Madras High Court for transferring a disproportionate assets case against Fisheries Minister Anitha R. Radhakrishnan and his family members from the Principal Sessions Court in Thoothukudi to a court of similar rank in Madurai. The central agency said only the latter had been designated as a special court to try offences under the Prevention of Money 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 four weeks, to the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) as well as other individual respondents, seeking their reply to the ED’s transfer plea. The orders were passed after hearing special public prosecutor P. Sidharthan for the ED.
Filing a detailed affidavit in support of the transfer petition, ED Assistant Director Nalini Krishnan said, Mr. Radhakrishnan served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly between May 14, 2001, and May 12, 2006, after being elected from Tiruchendur constituency. Then, he was Minister for the Animal Husbandry Department for the first year and served as Housing Minister for the rest of the tenure.
‘Assets disproportionate’
The total value of the pecuniary resources and properties possessed by the Minister, his wife R. Jeyagandhi, brothers R. Shanmuganandan and R. Sivanandan, and sons R. Ananda Padmanaban, R. Ananda Ramakrishnan, and R. Ananda Maheswaran was only ₹23.36 lakh as on May 14, 2001. However, the value of their pecuniary resources and properties had increased to ₹6.86 crore as on March 1, 2006.
Though the Minister and his family members were able to account for an income of ₹5.94 crore during the check period and their expenses during that period was claimed to be ₹1.39 crore, they were unable to account for the rest of the over ₹2 crore worth properties and hence, the DVAC had filed a chargesheet against all of them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on July 18, 2013.
Thereafter, the ED had registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the PMLA, on the basis of the DVAC case, and filed a petition before the Thoothukudi court last year to transfer the trial in the disproportionate assets case to the principal sessions court in Madurai, as only the latter had been designated as a special court for hearing PMLA offences.
Thoothukudi court’s rejection of plea
However, on December 11, 2025, the Thoothukudi court rejected ED’s transfer plea on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 44 of the PMLA. Assailing the rejection before the High Court now, the ED said, Section 44 clearly permits such transfer and hence, the failure of the Thoothukudi sessions court to do so was against the provisions of the special legislation.
Mr. Sidharthan said, Section 44(1)(c) states that if a court which had taken cognizance of a scheduled offence was other than a special court, which had taken cognisance of the offence of money laundering, the former shall, on an application by a competent authority, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the special court so that the hearing could be continued from the stage at which it was committed.
“Therefore, the Thoothukudi Principal Sessions Court had erred in refusing to transfer the case to the special court in Madurai,” he contended.
Published – March 12, 2026 04:05 pm IST
