In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed its stance on the procedural requirements for arrests made by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), dismissing a review petition that challenged the need for providing reasons for arrest in writing at the time of arrest. This ruling solidifies the court’s previous judgment, emphasizing the sufficiency of verbal notification at the time of arrest with a written follow-up within 24 hours.
Clarification on Arrest Procedures
The bench, led by Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, stated,
“In our opinion, no case for review is made out. Consequently, the Review petition is dismissed,”
Thereby, rejecting the plea for reconsideration of their earlier decision. This decision was rooted in the case of Ram Kishore Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, which had initially established that the ED is not obligated to provide the grounds of arrest in writing immediately at the time of arrest.
The Essence of Timely Communication
The Supreme Court’s judgment, dated December 15, 2023, clarified the interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It underscored that the phrase “as soon as may be” should be understood as requiring the ED to inform the arrestee of the arrest grounds “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” time, which has been determined to be within 24 hours of the arrest.
Justice Trivedi, in the judgment, elaborated,
“Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest.”
Upholding the Constitutionality of Section 19
The ruling also referenced the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary v. Union of India case, where a three-judge bench analyzed Section 19 of the PMLA and found it compliant with Article 21 of the Constitution. This precedent reinforces the current judgment, indicating that observations by benches of lesser strength on Section 19 are not binding.
Non-Retrospective Application of Pankaj Bansal Judgment
The bench addressed arguments regarding the retrospective application of the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India judgment, which had directed the ED to furnish arrest grounds in writing. The court clarified that the directive to provide written grounds “henceforth” implies from the date of the judgment forward, not retroactively. This interpretation was supported by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, emphasizing the consistency and legality of the ED’s practices prior to the Pankaj Bansal judgment.
This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, ensuring that the ED’s procedures align with constitutional mandates while providing clarity on the rights of the accused and the obligations of law enforcement.
