Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Supreme Court Slams Enforcement Directorate's Lack of Transparency in Recent Judgment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has strongly criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its lack of transparency in its actions. One of the key issues addressed in the judgment was the failure of the ED to inform the arrested individuals about the second Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) before their arrests. The Supreme Court found this lack of transparency to be problematic and observed, "The way in which the ED recorded the second ECIR immediately after the appellants secured anticipatory bail in relation to the first ECIR... manifests complete and utter lack of bonafides."

The Supreme Court's judgment sheds light on the expectations placed on premier investigating agencies like the ED. It emphasized that these agencies are expected to operate with transparency, fairness, and the highest degree of probity. The ED, which is vested with far-reaching powers under the stringent Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, is expected to act without vindictiveness and maintain the highest standards of fairness.

The case in question involved allegations of abuse of power and vindictive conduct by the ED. The appellants asserted that their arrests were a wanton abuse of power, and the Supreme Court took these allegations seriously. It cited legal precedents, stating that "bad faith which invalidates the exercise of power" includes actions that go beyond the sanctioned purposes of power and are influenced by extraneous considerations.

Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the power to arrest is not mandatory in every case and should only be used when essential for custodial investigation, preventing further offenses, or avoiding tampering with evidence or witnesses. It pointed out that the ED failed to exercise its powers according to these parameters.

The Supreme Court's ruling has broader implications for the conduct of premier investigating agencies in India. It underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of transparency and fairness, especially when dealing with serious economic offenses like money laundering.

This  judgment has brought to the forefront the need for premier investigating agencies to uphold transparency and fairness in their actions. It has set a precedent for the expected standards of conduct for such agencies, with the Supreme Court taking a strong stance against actions that lack bonafides and transparency.

Date of Decision: 3 October 2023

Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News