Supreme Court to examine whether the PMLA allows ED to conduct “further investigation” after trial begins, in a case challenging the arrest of IAS officer Saumya Chaurasia. The outcome could curb “evergreen custody” practices.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a crucial constitutional and statutory question:
Does the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) confer any substantive power on the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to conduct “further investigation” after a case has entered the trial stage?
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi has issued notice to the Union of India and the Enforcement Directorate on a writ petition filed by Chhattisgarh cadre IAS officer Saumya Chaurasia, challenging the legality of her arrest in December 2025 in connection with the alleged Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam.
The issue before the Court is the interpretation of the PMLA as a “self-contained statute.” Appearing for Chaurasia, Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argue that the ED has been misusing the concept of “further investigation” to justify arrests long after filing prosecution complaints, thereby undermining personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The petition categorically contends that:
- No Express Power in PMLA: Unlike Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the PMLA contains no explicit provision authorising further investigation after filing a prosecution complaint.
- Section 44 Misread: Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the PMLA, often relied upon by the ED to file supplementary complaints, is argued to be purely procedural and clarificatory, not a source of substantive investigative or arrest powers.
- Section 65 Limitation: While Section 65 allows limited application of the CrPC, it applies only where provisions are not inconsistent with the PMLA. Importing CrPC-style powers of further investigation, the plea says, defeats legislative intent.
A major constitutional concern raised in the petition is the practice described as “evergreen custody.” According to the petitioner, investigative agencies repeatedly arrest individuals on the same set of facts through different proceedings, ensuring prolonged incarceration without necessity.
The plea highlights a striking factual timeline:
- Chaurasia was under investigation for over three years without arrest.
- She was named in an initial prosecution complaint in June 2024, followed by five supplementary complaints.
- Despite this, she was arrested only on December 16, 2025.
- Within ten days of her arrest, the ED filed a 518-page prosecution complaint supported by 172 documents.
This, the petition argues, conclusively demonstrates that the ED already possessed all material evidence, rendering the arrest a “residual or formality arrest” aimed solely at ensuring continued custody.
ALSO READ: State Police Raid on ED Office Was Preplanned: Jharkhand High Court Orders CRPF Security
Chaurasia’s plea relies heavily on established Supreme Court jurisprudence to argue that judicial oversight is mandatory even where further investigation is permissible.
Key judgments cited include:
- Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, where the Court held that further investigation without the leave of the court is impermissible and judicial control is an essential safeguard.
- Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court observed that further evidence can be brought on record only with the permission of the competent court.
The petitioner alleges that the ED has been systematically bypassing this safeguard, eroding the balance between state power and individual liberty.
The case gains additional significance in light of a recent Chhattisgarh High Court order in a similar plea filed by Chaitanya Baghel, co-accused and son of former Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel.
While the High Court acknowledged that further investigation should ordinarily require court permission, it held that the ED’s failure to obtain such permission amounted to a mere “irregularity” rather than an “illegality.” This finding has already been challenged before the Supreme Court, which issued notice in October 2025. The apex court is now examining both matters together to conclusively settle the law.
The writ petition seeks, among other reliefs:
- Quashing of Arrest: Setting aside the arrest dated 16.12.2025, the “reasons to believe” under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, the grounds of arrest, and the remand order passed by the Special PMLA Court, Raipur.
- Declaration of Law: A declaration that the conduct of “further investigation” by the ED without statutory backing or judicial permission is illegal, and that any supplementary prosecution complaint arising from such investigation is void in law.
Case Title:
Saumya Chaurasia v. Union of India & Anr.
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).713/2026
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Enforcement Directorate