Facts
• On Friday, July 12, the Supreme Court made a significant ruling in the PMLA jurisprudence when it granted Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal interim bail. The ruling stated that an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer exercising the power of arrest under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot disregard evidence that clears the
arrestee.
• Based on the information stated and documented therein as well as the data on file, the legality of the “reasons to believe” must be investigated. Nonetheless, the officer operating under PML Act Section 19(1) cannot disregard or fail to take into account the evidence that clears the arrested person. Any such disregard would produce challenging and unsatisfactory outcomes. Firstly, it would be in opposition to the statutory intent that sets strict requirements. Second, the DoE will not tolerate any excessive latitude or indulgence.
• To the extent that Kejriwal had claimed in his defense that the ED disregarded witnesses’ exonerating testimony, the court offered no particular commentary. Records show that Kejriwal declined to address the court regarding factual issues, and that while his arguments regarding the statements and evidence used by the ED to support “reasons to believe” were worthy of consideration, they took the form of propositions or deductions and did not support the quashing of “reasons to believe” in the exercise of the limited judicial review power.
• “Arvind Kejriwal can raise these arguments at the time when his application for bail is taken up for hearing,” the court said, leaving it open for Kejriwal to raise the petition involving exculpatory comments (and other reasons) before the trial court during bail proceedings. The court has more authority during bail proceedings, but there are requirements under Section 45 of the PML Act. The Special Court would have to make its own decisions without consulting.
• The concerned officer’s subjective assessment regarding the arrest was acknowledged by the court. It did, however, stress that the creation of the same must adhere to the law. Subjectivity of the opinion does not give one the right to disregard pertinent absolving information without providing justification. In this case, the officer violates the law in a way that fundamentally affects the decision-making process and borders on legal malice.”
Issue
1.Can ED Arrest under Section 19(1) Prevention Of Money Laundering Act?
2.ED’s “reasons to believe” selectively referred to implicating material and ignored the exculpatory material were valid?
Judgement
• The court has now concluded that it has the authority to judicially evaluate an Investigating Officer’s opinion in light of the opposing submissions. “Illegality results from erroneous application of the law or arbitrary performance of official duties. The court has the authority to overturn such a decision through judicial review. This would not be considered interference with the investigation or judicial overreach.
• Judicial Review Authority Over ED Officer’s Views Regarding Arrest To summarize, Kejriwal said that the ED’s “reasons to believe” only included evidence that implicated him while ignoring the evidence that cleared him. As a result, little effort was made to assess all of the information and supporting documentation. However, the ED asserted that the Investigating Officer had the right to determine “reasons to believe,” and that reviewing his assessment (with regard to the possibility of an arrest) amounted to “not guilty” all the reasons should be considered properly.
• There would be no judicial overreach or inquiry interference in this case. The only thing the court can guarantee is that the law is being enforced in conformity with the Constitution and the statute.” Differentiating between judicial review and merits review, it stated that an error in decision-making under Section 19(1) of the PMLA may result in the arrestee’s liberty being deprived “the courts should not go into the correctness of the opinion formed or sufficiency of the material on which it is based, though the order of detention may fail if a crucial fact or ground is overlooked, or if the ground or explanation is determined to be false.”
Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP(Crl) 5154/2024
Aishwarya, B. A. L. Lb. (Hons), Mody University Of Science And Technology, Laxmangarh, intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments