The Karnataka High Court has stayed summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to Advocate Anil Gowda in connection with an alleged money laundering probe arising from online and offline betting activities said to involve Congress legislator K.C. Veerendra.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while granting interim protection, also restrained the ED from pursuing further proceedings or taking coercive steps against the petitioner until the Supreme Court delivers its ruling on the extent of the agency’s power under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to summon practising advocates. The Court observed that “until authoritative guidance is laid down by the Apex Court, coercive action against a legal practitioner merely on the strength of summons under Section 50 would be impermissible.”
The petition, challenging the legality of the proceedings, questioned the validity of the summons dated 24 August 2025 and the broader actions of the ED, terming them politically motivated and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The plea argued that the agency’s actions amounted to selective targeting of the petitioner and Veerendra, who is currently a sitting MLA, claiming the exercise of power was driven by political vendetta.
It was further contended that the ED’s reliance on four FIRs, registered over a period of more than a decade and primarily alleging offences under Section 420 IPC, did not constitute “proceeds of crime” as defined under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of the PMLA. The petitioner emphasised that the FIRs had either ended in acquittal, been quashed, or excluded his name altogether, noting that betting itself does not constitute a scheduled offence under the PMLA. On this basis, the continuation of proceedings was asserted to be without jurisdiction and contrary to the principles laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for the petitioner, relied on a pending suo motu matter before the Supreme Court concerning the permissibility of investigative agencies summoning advocates over legal advice rendered to clients. He submitted that the advice provided by Gowda to Veerendra is protected and cannot form the basis for criminal process.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, representing the ED, opposed the petition, contending that Gowda was not summoned in his capacity as a lawyer but due to his association as a partner in commercial enterprises linked to Veerendra. The summons, according to the ED, were directed at gathering information relevant to the investigation, not to compel disclosure of privileged legal advice.
The petitioner sought quashing of the summons and the proceedings initiated against him, asserting that the ED was exceeding its jurisdiction by venturing into predicate offences, which lie outside the scope of PMLA. In the alternative, he requested protection from being compelled to furnish a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA in a manner that would amount to testimonial compulsion in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
The matter remains pending, with interim protection granted until the Supreme Court adjudicates on the issue of investigative agencies summoning practising advocates under the PMLA framework.
Case Title: Anil Gowda vs. The Directorate Of Enforcement
Case No: WP 26157/2025
Picture Source :
