The Delhi High Court expunged certain adverse observations made by a trial court against the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The Court found that the trial court’s comments regarding ED’s IO and the ED’s functioning were unjustified, adding that such remarks have a “deleterious effect” on a public servant’s career.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court took a significant step in clearing certain adverse remarks made by a trial court against the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its Investigating Officer (IO) in a high-profile money laundering case.
The High Court found these remarks to be unfounded and expunged them to avoid undue impact on the official record and careers of those involved.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani highlighted the implications of such adverse remarks, stating,
“It needs no emphasis, that adverse remarks made by a court against government servants have a serious deleterious impact on their official record and on their careers, especially if such remarks are unwarranted or unjustified.”
The ED’s challenge was based on the trial court’s orders from October 5 and October 19, 2024, both of which raised concerns about the agency’s handling of the investigation.
The trial court, in its October 5 order, had questioned the ED’s effectiveness, noting that the ED’s failure to ensure the presence of a prime accused reflected “foul play.” The accused in question had been declared absconding, and the ED had taken multiple steps to locate him, including issuing summons.
Nevertheless, the trial court commented that
“there was enough time to initiate coercive steps against the said accused,”
suggesting that the ED could have done more to secure his presence. Emphasizing the need for objectivity in investigations, the trial court added,
“No doubt arrest and investigation is the sole prerogative of investigating agency but the manner in which it is conducted should reflect fairness and not arbitrariness or whimsical attitude,”
and directed the ED Director to submit a detailed report.
On October 19, after the report was still not filed, the trial court issued another order admonishing the ED for what it described as an unacceptable level of inactivity.
“All this reflects poorly upon the ED. Such lackadaisical approach on the part of the ED is absolutely unacceptable. ED is showing complete apathy to the observations of this court and absence of the IO today is ample proof of the same,”
-read the court’s remarks, signaling its disappointment with the agency’s responsiveness.
Representing the ED, Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain challenged these observations, asserting they were unwarranted and based on misunderstandings of the ED’s efforts. He detailed the agency’s multiple steps to trace the absconding accused, which included repeated summons, address verifications, and issuing a Look-Out-Circular (LOC) through the Bureau of Immigration to prevent the accused from leaving the country.
Hossain further argued that the ED Director does not have an operational role in daily investigations, making the trial court’s demand for the Director’s personal presence unnecessary.
The High Court agreed with the ED’s position, emphasizing that the agency is not obligated to delay filing a charge-sheet due to an absconding accused’s absence. It further clarified that no adverse inference could be drawn against the ED’s complaint if the main accused is already declared an “absconder.”
Highlighting a precedent set by the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated,
“In light of the extant position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court inter-alia in Dinesh Dalmia (supra) and Tarsem Lal (supra), the court is persuaded to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, namely that merely because the prosecution complaint has been filed by the ED without tracing or arresting Karan Chugh, that is in itself ground for assuming that the ED has been derelict in investigating the case. Furthermore, the law is also clear, that custody of an accused can be sought even after filing of a chargesheet or complaint.”
By expunging the trial court’s remarks, the High Court upheld the integrity of the ED’s investigation while respecting the ongoing trial court proceedings. It clarified,
“The observations made by the learned Special Judge in orders dated 05.10.2024 and 19.10.2024, to the extent they have been extracted above, shall stand expunged,”
reaffirming the need for fair treatment of investigative agencies in complex legal proceedings.
Representing the ED in court were Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Special Public Prosecutor Manish Jain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, and advocates Pranjal Tripathi and Suradhish Vats, while Advocate Vanya Gupta appeared for one of the respondents.
This ruling serves as a pivotal reminder of the judiciary’s responsibility to balance oversight with fairness to public servants and government agencies engaged in critical investigations.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on ED
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
