Sale Deed Invalid After Revocation of Power of Attorney: Madras High Court Supreme Court Declares WhatsApp Service of Notices Invalid Under Notices under Section 41-A CrPC/Section 35 BNSS Doctrine of Natural Justice Cannot Be Invoked to Evade Regulatory Compliance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Petition Against Consumer Forum Order Presence of Metallic Foreign Bodies in X-ray Corroborates Firearm Injury" – Patna High Court School Records Alone Insufficient to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Without Corroboration: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Double Payment for the Same Claim Is Against Public Policy: Karnatka High Court Remits Case to Commercial Court Land Acquisition | Once the Government Funds an Acquisition, Public Purpose Cannot Be Disputed: Bombay High Court When a Man Acts in the Heat of the Moment, Law Must Recognize the Loss of Self-Control: KERALA HIGH COURT Absence of Bank Seal on Cheque Return Memo Not a Ground for Acquittal: Calcutta High Court Convicts Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Confiscation is Not Automatic: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Release of Seized Vehicle in NDPS Case False Allegations in Matrimonial Disputes Can Constitute Mental Cruelty Justifying Divorce: Gujarat High Court Bail Cannot Be Granted in Cases of Commercial Drug Trafficking: Delhi High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Alleged International Drug Cartel Member Magistrate Can Rely on Victim’s Section 164 Statement Over Section 161 Statement: Allahabad High Court Upholds Closure Report in Kidnapping and Rape Case State Liable for Electrocution Injury to Minor Due to Uncovered High-Voltage Wire: J&K and Ladakh High Court Unexplained Delay of 586 Days in Filing Appeal Cannot Be Condoned as a Matter of Right: Supreme Court Sets Aside Karnataka High Court’s Order A Purchaser During Litigation Cannot Claim Superior Rights Over a Decree-Holder: Supreme Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens Violation of Natural Justice at the Initial Stage Cannot Be Cured at the Appellate Stage: Supreme Court Denial of Fair Hearing Strikes at the Very Core of Justice: Supreme Court Upholds Selection of Shiksha Karmis Merit Alone Must Prevail: Supreme Court Strikes Down Residence-Based Quota in PG Medical Courses Selective Prosecution and Missing Witnesses: Supreme Court Slams Conviction Based on Incomplete Evidence Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Eyewitnesses and Mere Recovery of Weapon: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Need for Legal Recognition of Live-in Relationships:  Rajasthan High Court Calls for Mandatory Registration Judicial Discipline Demands Uniformity: Rajasthan High Court Refers Protection of Married Persons in Live-in Relationships to Special Bench

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

Similar News