On Thursday, the Supreme Court decided that even after a special court had taken cognizance of the money laundering case, the ED was not authorised to arrest an accused person under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
According to the Bench, in order to get custody of an accused person who has been before a judge on a summons, the agency must petition to the relevant court. The court states that since the accused is not considered to be in custody, there is no need for the accused to request bail.
Source: Civils Daily
The decision represents yet another blow to the ED, which has faced harsh judicial scrutiny in recent months and has been falsely accused of overreaching by opposition parties on several occasions. These parties, particularly the AAP, have asserted that Central investigative agencies are pursuing their leaders at the directive of the governing party.
The ED’s purportedly unrestrained authority under the PMLA has been the focus of a contentious discussion since 2017, when a Division Bench invalidated Section 45(1) of the Act, which mandated further requirements for the accused’s bail approval. Nevertheless, a judgement rendered by a different SC Bench in July 2022 had overturned this ruling.
Source: CNBC- TV18
Arvind Kejriwal, the chief minister of Delhi, was granted temporary release in a money laundering case, according to the Supreme Court. The Bench stated, “We said in our order what we felt was justified,” and expressed gratitude for a critical evaluation of the decision. These remarks were made two weeks after the court asked the ED to explain why Kejriwal was arrested just before the Lok Sabha elections. It’s obvious that the ED needs to provide a lot of explanation in each and every situation.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
