Exclusive: How DVAC under DMK govt stonewalled ED probe against AIADMK ex-ministerVijayabaskar

DVAC refused to share chargesheet with ED, said they were “third party”; now DMK wants ED probe against eight AIADMK leaders including Vijayabaskar based on DVAC cases

Former Health minister and AIADMK MLA C Vijayabaskar

On March 19, 2026 Tamil Nadu’s ruling party DMK through their Rajya Sabha MP filed nine unusual writ petitions before the Madras High Court. They wanted the central agency Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct money laundering investigations against seven former ministers from their rival AIADMK, based on corruption cases registered by the state Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC).

The petitioner, R Girirajan, alluded that ED was going slow against the tainted former AIADMK ministers as the party was in an alliance with BJP, which calls the shots at the Centre.

One of the ex-ministers against whom ED should invoke money laundering charges, as per Girirajan’s prayer, was C Vijayabaskar, the health minister in the previous AIADMK government, against whom DVAC had registered two corruption cases, after DMK came to power in May 2021.

What the petition omitted is that the ED had already registered a money laundering case against Vijayabaskar in December 2021 and that the DVAC, in the current DMK regime, had stonewalled the central agency’s request to share documents implicating the former minister’s alleged misdeeds.

How DVAC stonewalled ED in Vijayabaskar’s corruption case:

Five months after DMK President MK Stalin took oath as Tamil Nadu’s 21st Chief Minister in May 2021, the Pudukkottai detachment of DVAC on October 17, 2021 registered a corruption case against Vijayabaskar, accusing him of amassing disproportionate assets totalling Rs 35.79 crore.

Since the Prevention of Corruption Act is a scheduled offence under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), ED’s Chennai Zone 2 registered ECIR/CEZO-II/34/2021 on December 21 and began investigations.

DVAC completed its investigation and submitted its chargesheet in 2023, naming the ex-minister and his wife as accused.

Since the ED’s money laundering case was based on DVAC’s case, the agency approached DVAC through a written communication on February 7, 2022 seeking copies of the documents, namely the statements of the accused, mahazar and final report. This was under section 54 of the PMLA, ED said, to conduct an effective investigation.

However, DVAC gave ED only a copy of the FIR (which is already available on their website) and refused to share other documents.

ED took legal recourse, approaching the Pudukkotai Principal District and Sessions Court in March 2024, seeking a direction to DVAC to provide the complete set of documents to them. ED wanted the chargesheet and Relied Upon Documents (RUD), the papers used by DVAC as evidence to prove the corruption charges.

What happened next was puzzling, given that DMK was in power and the DVAC was prosecuting an arch rival against whose corruption the party had strongly rallied.

Through their affidavit on April 25, 2024, DVAC refused to share the case documents with ED.

DVAC said that they were not obligated to provide their documents to another agency as this would be a circumvention of judicial processes.

In its affidavit, the agency contented that DVAC and ED operated in distinct fields, labelled the ED a “third party”, and said that the central agency must file an application to access copies of the documents under Rule 210 of Criminal Rules of Practice 2019.

The state agency also said that under section 54 of PMLA, they were only required to assist in the course of investigation and not disclose/provide documents of their case to ED.

Curiously, Vijayabaskar took a stand similar to DVAC, in his affidavit before the court. He said that the ED had not made any submissions to show compliance with section 54 of PMLA, that the documents were not public, and hence should not be given to ED.

Both DVAC and Vijayabaskar took legal recourse in section 210 and 237 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, stating that ED should file an application to inspect the documents and then seek certified copies of what they required.

On August 2, 2024, the Pudukkottai Principal District and Sessions Judge G Subathra Devi dismissed ED’s petition, agreeing with DVAC and Vijayabaskar that the central agency should file an application under the aforesaid Rule 237. Sources in the legal establishment said that ED filed an affidavit in November 2024 and have also inspected the documents and sought a copy.

Pattern of DMK and AIADMK’s collusion:

Anti-corruption activist and convenor of Arappor Iyakkam said that this was yet another example of collusion between DMK and AIADMK when it came to investigating corruption cases against their leaders.

Read: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/sp-velumani-case-sanction-to-prosecute-ias-officers-delayed-over-translation-of-documents-dvac-tells-madras-hc/article70068788.ece

Arappor Iyakkam filed multiple complaints against AIADMK ministers, when they were in power from 2016–2021. Most of them were raked up by then Leader of Opposition MK Stalin and also became the source material for DVAC’s cases, based on which Girirajan demanded ED action.

Jayaram pointed out how the DMK had failed to file even chargesheets in DVAC’s cases against the same ex-AIADMK ministers against whom they want ED’s probe.

“It shows that the two parties are in an understanding,” he said.

Jayaram also questioned the ED, alleging that the agency did not act on cases against AIADMK leaders.

“On the surface, the DMK, AIADMK and BJP show that they are opposed to each other. But underneath there seems to be a clear understanding,” Jayram alleged.

The only exception to this is ED’s case against R Vaithilingam, a former AIADMK minister. ED’s money laundering investigation into a corruption complaint against Vaithilingam was based on two DVAC FIRs registered after DMK came to power. Like in other cases related to AIADMK, DVAC relied on Arappor Iyakkam’s detailed complaint.

Interestingly, even as the DVAC case gathers dust, Vaithilingam joined the DMK last month, which led to charges of “washing machine” against the ruling party, an allegation it uses for the BJP at the Centre.

Read: https://www.thenewsminute.com/tamil-nadu/dmk-accused-of-washing-machine-politics-after-aiadmk-strongman-joins-party

Post Script (19/03/2026, 9:17pm): Official sources said that the DVAC has closed the second corruption FIR against Vijayabaskar. The 2022 case was sensational, given that DVAC accused him of taking bribes in lieu for permitting a medical college owned by Ishari Ganesh, the powerful Tamil film producer and owner of Vels group of institutions. Even in this case, the Enforcement Directorate had begun a probe, which will now have to be wound up as the predicate offence, the DVAC case, has been closed, sources said.

Ends/