When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: 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