Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: 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