Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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