Today, in a notable courtroom exchange during the ongoing review proceedings in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expressed strong concern over the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), underlining that the agency must function strictly within legal boundaries. The remarks came as the Court considered the maintainability of petitions seeking a relook at its 2022 judgment which upheld several provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The case arose from the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment, which upheld several far-reaching provisions of the PMLA, including the twin conditions for bail under Section 45, the non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) to the accused, and the reverse burden of proof under Section 24. The review petitioners have now sought reconsideration of these provisions, contending that they violate fundamental procedural safeguards and infringe upon the rights of the accused.
In response, the ED has raised three primary objections:
-
That the review fails to demonstrate any 'error apparent on the face of the record'
-
That the petitions are, in substance, appeals disguised as reviews
-
That, based on the Supreme Court’s earlier directions, only two issues, namely the non-supply of the ECIR and the reverse burden under Section 24, are open for review consideration.
While voicing concern over the agency's practices, the Bench observed, “You cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of law. There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies.” The Bench further added that the image of the ED was equally a matter of concern for the Court, highlighting the minimal conviction rate in PMLA prosecutions, stating, "See what I observed in one of the cases that came true in what a minister said in Parliament.... After 5000 cases, less than 10 convictions. We are equally concerned about the image of ED."
The Bench also questioned the implications of prolonged judicial custody when such prosecutions do not result in conviction. The Bench asked, “At the end of 5-6 years of judicial custody, if people are acquitted, who will pay for this?”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju defended the agency, attributing the delays in trials to procedural strategies employed by influential accused persons, stating that many of them hire “a powerful battery of lawyers and file so many applications” to obstruct the trial. He asserted that investigators were “terribly handicapped,” especially in cases where the main accused escapes to foreign jurisdictions like the Cayman Islands. He further contended that the review petitions were, in essence, appeals dressed as reviews, stating, “If the review is accepted, it would be tantamount to rewriting the judgment of Vijay Madanlal, which cannot be permitted.”
Reiterating the threshold for invoking the Court’s review jurisdiction, ASG Raju submitted that unless an “error apparent on the face of the record” is demonstrated, a review would not lie. He further added, “Review can’t be an appeal in disguise. They have to make out an exceptionally strong case for review.” He insisted that no such case had been made out and that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the PMLA provisions had already been settled in favour of the ED.
The matter remains under adjudication, with the Court poised to determine whether the threshold for review has indeed been met in this high-stakes challenge to the PMLA ruling.
Picture Source :
