Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Declares Arvind Kejriwal’s Arrest Under PMLA Illegal, Cites Failure to Comply with Statutory Preconditions

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court’s rejection of Kejriwal’s writ petition overturned, arrest and remand orders nullified due to non-compliance with Section 19(1) PMLA.

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has declared the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) as illegal. The apex court highlighted the failure to meet the stringent safeguards under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. The court’s decision overturns the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of Kejriwal’s writ petition challenging his arrest and subsequent remand orders.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a case (RC No. 0032022A0053) against Kejriwal and others in connection with alleged irregularities in the Delhi excise policy. Following this, the DoE initiated a probe under PMLA, leading to Kejriwal’s arrest on 21st March 2024. Kejriwal challenged his arrest, arguing non-compliance with statutory preconditions required under Section 19 of the PMLA. The Delhi High Court dismissed his petition, leading to the present appeal.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, emphasized the mandatory preconditions for arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA. “The conditions are stringent safeguards to protect life and liberty of individuals,” the bench noted, stressing the necessity of recording ‘reasons to believe’ that the person is guilty of an offense under the PMLA.

The court delineated the scope of judicial review concerning arrests under PMLA. It underscored that courts must ensure compliance with statutory conditions and constitutional rights, preventing arbitrary exercises of power. The judgment also addressed the necessity to arrest, as articulated in prior rulings such as Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, asserting that mere non-cooperation with summons does not justify arrest.

The court extensively discussed the principles of evaluating the legality of an arrest. It reiterated that arrest under Section 19 PMLA must be based on recorded ‘reasons to believe’ and not merely on suspicion. “The officer must objectively assess all material in possession, including exculpatory evidence, before forming a belief of guilt,” the judgment stated.

Justice Khanna remarked, “The power to arrest is drastic and extreme, and therefore, must be exercised with utmost care and accountability, ensuring compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to nullify Kejriwal’s arrest underscores the judiciary’s commitment to uphold procedural fairness and constitutional rights. This landmark ruling reinforces the need for stringent adherence to statutory safeguards in cases involving pre-trial arrests under PMLA. The judgment is anticipated to have significant implications on future enforcement actions under the PMLA, reinforcing the legal framework for protecting individual liberties.

 

Date of Decision: 3rd July 2024

Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

Latest Legal News