Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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