ED should not act vindictively

The Supreme Court reprimanded the Enforcement Directorate (ED)

(Credits: NDTV.com)

New Delhi – Highlighting the ED’s conduct in the case, the Court stated that the agency’s failure to provide a written copy of the grounds for arrest to the accused reflected poorly on its functioning. The Court emphasised that the ED should be transparent, impartial, and above board in its operations and should not act vindictively. Being a premier investigating agency charged with the onerous responsibility of curbing 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 the pristine standards of fair play in action. The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent 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.”

(Credits:CNBC TV 18)

No response to the charges does not mean that ED gets the right to arrest the accused

The court further clarified that the failure of the accused to respond to the allegations leveled against them in the summons issued by the ED meant that the ED did not have the power to arrest them under Section 19. Section 19 of the Act of 2002 prescribes the manner in which the arrest of a person involved in money laundering can be effected. It was observed that such power was vested in high-ranking officials and that apart, Section 19 of the Act of 2002 provided inbuilt safeguards to be
adhered to by the authorized officers, such as, of recording reasons for the belief regarding involvement of the person in the offence of money laundering and, further, such reasons have to be recorded in writing and while effecting arrest, the grounds of arrest are to be informed to that person.

After serving the summons, the accused cannot be expected to accept the crime directly

In this case, the ED claimed in the court that the answers given by the accused were misleading. The court then said that in any case, the ED officials cannot expect that the summoned accused will confess to the crime and any answer other than that would be misleading.

What is the matter ?

A few days ago, the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) arrested ‘M3M Group’s directors Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal in the financial misappropriation case. At that time, the officers read out the reason for their arrest. In this regard, while reprimanding the ED, the Court said, “At the time of arrest, the accused must be given a written copy of the reasons for the arrest”, declared the arrest of the directors illegal and ordered their immediate release.