Tripura HC refuses ED plea to lift stay on IAS officer's asset attachment

The Tripura High Court has dismissed the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) application to vacate a stay protecting suspended IAS officer Abhishek Chandra from property attachment proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), Tripura Times reported.

A Division Bench of Justice T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit passed the order on November 10 on an application filed by the Union of India and the ED.

What the ED wanted

The agency had asked the court to recall its interim order of September 16, which had put on hold proceedings that began with a provisional attachment order dated July 31, 2026.

Deputy Solicitor General B. Majumder, appearing for the ED, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the PMLA provides its own remedies: the Adjudicating Authority first, then the Appellate Tribunal under Section 26, and an appeal to the High Court under Section 42. He also pointed out that a provisional attachment is valid for 180 days and that this period would soon run out. The ED cited the Supreme Court's rulings in P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement and Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India.

Chandra's argument

Chandra's counsel, advocate Navin Kumar, argued that having another remedy available does not stop the High Court from hearing a petition under Article 226, especially where statutory requirements are alleged to have been breached. He said the ED's Deputy Director had not complied with Section 5 of the PMLA, and that Chandra was not named in any of the five FIRs the agency relied on. He cited the Supreme Court's Whirlpool Corporation judgment.

The order

The Bench said the challenge needed to be examined in light of Section 5(5) of the PMLA, that Chandra's grievances required detailed consideration, and that the balance of convenience favoured him. It noted that the ED had filed a counter-affidavit in the main case but limited its arguments to the stay.

The court dismissed the ED's application, ordered that the September 16 interim order will continue until the writ petition is decided, and made the stay absolute. The case will now be heard on its merits.