The Tripura High Court has rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s plea to vacate an interim stay on property attachment proceedings against suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra under the PMLA, allowing judicial protection to continue until the final disposal of his writ petition.
The Tripura High Court has dismissed an application filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking to vacate an interim stay on property attachment proceedings against suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). With the latest order, the interim protection granted to Chandra will continue until the final disposal of his writ petition.
A Division Bench comprising Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit passed the order on November 10 while hearing an application filed by the Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate. The application sought the withdrawal of an interim order passed by the High Court on September 16, which had suspended proceedings initiated through a provisional attachment order dated July 31, 2026.
During the hearing, Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder, appearing on behalf of the ED, argued that Chandra’s writ petition was not maintainable because alternative statutory remedies were available under the PMLA. He submitted that the petitioner should first approach the Adjudicating Authority and subsequently pursue remedies before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26 and the High Court under Section 42 of the Act.
The ED further maintained that the provisional attachment order carried a validity period of 180 days and that the period was approaching its expiry. To strengthen its arguments, the agency’s counsel referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including P. Chidambaram versus Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India.
However, advocate Navin Kumar, appearing for suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra, strongly opposed the ED’s application. He argued that the mere availability of an alternative statutory remedy did not automatically prevent the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226.
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the High Court could intervene in exceptional circumstances, particularly when there were allegations of violations of statutory provisions or jurisdictional requirements. He specifically alleged that the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements under Section 5 of the PMLA.
Navin Kumar also contended that Abhishek Chandra was not named in any of the five FIRs relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate in initiating the proceedings. According to the petitioner’s submissions, no allegations against Chandra appeared in those FIRs.
In support of his arguments, the counsel referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Whirlpool Corporation versus Registrar of Trade Marks, which recognises circumstances in which constitutional courts may entertain writ petitions despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies.
After considering the submissions from both sides, the Division Bench observed that the challenge to the provisional attachment proceedings required detailed examination, particularly in the context of Section 5(5) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The court also noted that although the Enforcement Directorate had filed a counter-affidavit in the main writ petition, its counsel had confined the arguments during the present hearing to the application seeking vacation of the interim stay.
The Bench observed that the grievances raised by the petitioner required comprehensive consideration and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the interim protection to continue. It further indicated that the issues involved in the matter should be decided finally after examining all relevant aspects.
| Also Read: Anupam Kher condemns alleged assault on BSF jawan in Tripura |
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s application seeking vacation of the interim order. The court directed that its September 16 order would remain in force until the disposal of Abhishek Chandra’s writ petition and made the interim stay absolute.
The latest development means that the property attachment proceedings initiated against the suspended IAS officer will remain on hold while the High Court examines the legality and other issues surrounding the provisional attachment proceedings under the PMLA.
