Cannot arrest for not responding to questions: Supreme Court tells ED
Hindustan TimesThe Enforcement Directorate cannot arrest anyone under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for failing to respond to agency’s questions, or for a mere non-cooperation in response to summons, the Supreme Court has held, adding it is not legitimate for the federal anti-money laundering agency to expect an admission of guilt from a person called for interrogation. The Supreme Court’s judgment circumscribing Enforcement Directorate’s vast powers to make arrests and prescribing necessary conditions came over a year after a three-judge bench affirmed the sweeping powers given to ED under the 2002 Act. HT reported on Wednesday that the judgment quashed the arrest of Pankaj and Basant Bansal, two directors of real estate firm M3M, and ruled that ED is bound to provide a copy of the grounds of arrest to accused under PMLA Section 19, adding that mere verbal information would be construed as a breach of the Constitutional rights of the arrested person. The top court’s judgment circumscribing ED’s vast powers to make arrests and prescribing necessary conditions came over a year after a three-judge bench affirmed the sweeping powers given to ED under the 2002 Act for summoning individuals, making arrests, conducting raids, and attaching properties of the suspects, saying that law enforcement agencies must be armed with an effective mechanism to safeguard the nation’s wealth from criminals. In order to enable a person to be apprised of the reasons of his arrest and be able to make out a case before a court of law for bail, the top court ordered that “it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.” Read here: “Atrocious crime”: SC junks bail plea of Coimbatore serial blast convicts The latest judgment, marking afresh the limits of ED’s powers in the matters of arrests, came at a time when another three-judge bench has scheduled a hearing for October 18 to examine the correctness of the July 2022 judgment and take a call on referring the matter to a Constitution bench.