2024: Courts’ Ongoing Oversight of the Enforcement Directorate
Throughout 2024, courts, particularly the Supreme Court, significantly influenced the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) operations, demanding accountability, transparency, and adherence to constitutional rights. From scrutinizing the ED’s arrest powers to questioning prolonged detentions and enforcing bail rights, the judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the agency’s practices.
ED’s Struggling Conviction Rate
Despite filing 911 cases since 2019, the ED has achieved only a 4.6% conviction rate. A report from the Union Ministry of Finance highlighted that out of 257 cases still pending in trial courts, only 42 led to convictions, with 99 individuals found guilty. When considering the broader picture from 2014 to 2024, the ED registered over 5,000 cases, but only 43 reached the verdict stage. This slow progress raised questions about the agency’s effectiveness and the pace of justice in PMLA cases.
Prolonged Detention and Bail Struggles
The ED has often faced accusations of detaining accused individuals for extended periods without trial, especially under the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes high thresholds for granting bail. This provision mandates that bail can only be granted if the judge is convinced the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offenses. The Supreme Court, however, repeatedly stepped in to safeguard the liberty of accused individuals.
Key Court Interventions:
- Supreme Court on Arbitrary Arrests: The Court ruled that arrests under the PMLA must be justified with concrete reasons and cannot be arbitrary. It also stated that the ED cannot arrest an accused once the trial court takes cognizance of the case, emphasizing that arrest should only occur after seeking court permission for further investigation.
- Bail as a Constitutional Right: In cases involving high-profile political leaders like Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, the Court stressed that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” even for serious offenses under the PMLA. The Court declared that courts should not routinely deny bail, especially in cases where there is no immediate risk of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence.
- Liberty Over Strict Bail Conditions: The Court ruled that the rigorous conditions for bail under PMLA cannot override the fundamental right to liberty. In its judgment, the Court reaffirmed that constitutional courts must not allow extended incarceration due to procedural delays.
Restrictions on ED’s Arrest Powers
Several court rulings during 2024 placed strict conditions on the ED’s arrest and prosecution powers:
- No Arrest Without Trial Court Involvement: The Court ruled that if the accused is not arrested during the investigation, they cannot be detained once the trial court takes over the case. This decision essentially limited the ED’s ability to arrest individuals before trial without judicial oversight.
- Inadmissibility of Statements Made Under Duress: The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by accused individuals under Section 50 of the PMLA, while in custody, could not be used as evidence in trial. The Court argued that such statements made under duress do not reflect the free will of the accused and cannot be deemed valid.
- Public Servants’ Protection: In November, the Court ruled that the ED cannot prosecute public servants involved in their official duties without prior sanction from the government. This judgment significantly impacted cases involving politicians and public figures, highlighting the necessity of government approval before initiating proceedings.
Scrutiny and Reform at the High Court and Trial Court Levels
The judicial focus was not limited to the Supreme Court. High Courts and trial courts across the country became more proactive in scrutinizing the ED’s methods:
- Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Court criticized the ED for subjecting an accused to over 14 hours of continuous questioning, ordering the agency to ensure officers are trained on the human rights implications of prolonged interrogations.
- Bombay High Court: The Court raised concerns about ED officers interrogating individuals during late-night hours, emphasizing the fundamental human right to rest and sleep.
- Trial Courts: Trial courts across the country also began taking a more independent stance, questioning the prolonged detentions of accused individuals and ensuring that their constitutional rights were protected. In one notable case, a trial court rejected the ED’s argument that only the Supreme Court could grant bail in cases involving delayed trials, affirming the role of all courts in protecting individual liberty.
Challenges to ED’s Approach
The year 2024 saw growing resistance against the ED’s aggressive tactics, with many courts rejecting its approach to arrest, detention, and prosecution. Several key developments included:
- Senthil Balaji’s Case: The Supreme Court ruled that statements made by an accused while in custody could not be used as evidence, challenging the precedent set by the three-judge Bench in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case. This ruling raised significant questions about the ED’s use of confessions obtained under duress.
- High-Profile Bail Cases: Political leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia, and others continued to challenge the ED’s bail refusals. The Courts consistently ruled in favor of granting bail, citing the violation of constitutional rights and the lack of urgency in bringing the accused to trial.
- Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants: In the high-profile cases of politicians like Kejriwal and Sisodia, the Court’s ruling on the need for prior sanction from the government before prosecuting public servants forced the ED to reassess its approach, leading to delays in several ongoing investigations.
Conclusion: A Year of Judicial Oversight
In 2024, courts across India, particularly the Supreme Court, played an instrumental role in curbing the excesses of the Enforcement Directorate, ensuring that the constitutional rights of individuals are not overridden by the agency’s aggressive tactics. With ongoing challenges and review petitions against key rulings, the judicial oversight of ED actions is likely to continue in the coming years, further shaping the application of the PMLA and the agency’s powers.
