NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has dismissed the Centre’s petition seeking review of its verdict that said it’s necessary for the Enforcement Directorate to furnish a copy of grounds of arrest to the arrested person in writing “without exception”.
“We have carefully gone through the review petitions and the connected papers. We do not find any error, much less apparent, in the order impugned, warranting its reconsideration. The review petitions are dismissed accordingly,” a Bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said in its March 20 order.
Indicting the Enforcement Directorate for arbitrary exercise of powers conferred on it under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Supreme Court had on October 3, 2023 said that the probe agency must act in a transparent and non-vindictive manner, conforming to pristine standards of fair play in its actions.
“…the clandestine conduct of the ED in proceeding against the appellants (Bansals), by recording the second ECIR immediately after they secured interim protection in relation to the first ECIR, does not commend acceptance as it reeks of arbitrary exercise of power,” the top court had said.
Citing Article 22(1) of the Constitution which provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest, it had noted, “This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose.”
The Centre had sought a review of the October 3, 2023 verdict by which it had granted bail to Gurugram-based realty group M3M’s directors Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal in a money laundering case probed by the ED.
Writing the judgment for the Bench, Justice Kumar had said, “The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent (Prevention of Money Laundering) Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness.”
Indicting the probe agency for suppression of certain facts before the Delhi High Court, the top court had said it demonstrated “complete lack of probity on the part of the ED.”
It had said, “Mere non-cooperation of a witness in response to the summons issued under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 would not be enough to render him/her liable to be arrested under Section 19 (of PMLA).”
Earlier, in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, a three-judge Bench of the top court had in July 2022 held that non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) in a given case cannot be found fault with, as the ECIR may contain details of the material in the ED’s possession and revealing the same may have a deleterious impact on the final outcome of the investigation or inquiry.
It had said that so long as the person was ‘informed’ of the grounds of his/her arrest, that would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
However, in its October 3, 2023 verdict the top court has clarified that “In the event any such sensitive material finds mention in such grounds of arrest recorded by the authorized officer, it would always be open to him to redact such sensitive portions in the document and furnish the edited copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person, so as to safeguard the sanctity of the investigation.”
It said, “Being a premier investigating agency, charged with the onerous responsibility of curbing the 19 debilitating economic offence of money laundering in our country, every action of the ED in the course of such exercise is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action.”