Supreme Court Rules ED Arrests Without Written Grounds of Arrest Under PMLA Illegal

Key Takeaways:

• The lack of written grounds of arrest by the ED is a violation of the protection granted under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of PMLA.
• The arrested person must be provided with a copy of the written grounds of arrest as a matter of course and without exception.
• The requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest is rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which confers the right to be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds for arrest and the right to legal representation.
• The order of remand was also deemed invalid as it was passed in a mechanical manner and without examining whether the ED had reasons to believe and whether the grounds of arrest were provided or not.
• The detained persons were entitled to be released as the detention was deemed illegal.

The recent Supreme Court order on the arrests made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) has sparked a debate in the legal community. The Supreme Court held that oral communication of the grounds of arrest is not sufficient compliance with the constitutional and statutory mandate of providing grounds of arrest in writing.

In the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the arrest made by the ED is illegal if the grounds of arrest are not furnished in writing. The Court emphasized that the lack of written grounds of arrest results in a violation of the protection granted under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and Section 19 of PMLA. The Court stated that it is necessary for a copy of the written grounds of arrest to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.

The requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest is rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which confers the right to be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds for arrest and the right to legal representation. The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that oral communication of the grounds of arrest is not sufficient compliance with this constitutional right.

The judgment also highlighted the significance of providing grounds of arrest in writing, especially in cases where the arrested person wants to challenge the arrest or apply for bail. One of the conditions for the grant of bail under PMLA is that the accused is not involved in an offense of money laundering. Therefore, knowledge of the grounds of arrest becomes crucial for the accused to seek legal representation and present a case when seeking bail.

Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that the order of remand was also not valid as it was passed in a mechanical manner and without examining whether the ED had reasons to believe and whether the grounds of arrest were provided or not. Therefore, the detained persons were entitled to be released as the detention was deemed illegal.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India has clarified that the ED must provide the written grounds of arrest to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of PMLA and the rights of the accused during arrest and detention.

FAQ:

Q1: What is the significance of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India?

A1: The ruling clarifies that the ED must provide the written grounds of arrest to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Q2: What rights are conferred by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India?

A2: Article 22(1) confers the right to be informed, as soon as possible, of the grounds for arrest and the right to legal representation.

Q3: What are the implications of the ruling on the order of remand?

A3: The ruling emphasized that the order of remand was also not valid as it was passed in a mechanical manner and without examining whether the ED had reasons to believe and whether the grounds of arrest were provided or not.