Supreme Court vs ED: Drawing the Line Between Investigation and Intimidation

 Supreme Court vs ED: Drawing the Line Between Investigation and Intimidation

For the past few years, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has become one of India’s most feared investigating agencies. Whether it’s opposition leaders, industrialists, or small business owners — ED notices seem to arrive faster than even police summons. But is this legal muscle-flexing always justified?

In V. Senthil Balaji v. State, decided in 2024, the Supreme Court sent a strong message: Enforcement agencies cannot override constitutional rights.

 What Was the Case?

Senthil Balaji, a Tamil Nadu minister, was arrested by ED for alleged money laundering. He challenged the manner of his arrest, arguing that:

• He wasn’t shown the reasons for arrest.

• He was denied legal consultation.

• He wasn't produced properly before a magistrate.

The case triggered a debate on how far ED can go without judicial oversight.

 Supreme Court’s Observations

1. Right to Be Informed
   The Court clarified that Article 22(1) of the Constitution mandates that any arrested person has the right to be told the grounds of arrest in writing.

2. Right to Legal Representation
   No matter the agency, the right to consult a lawyer cannot be denied. Even under PMLA, legal safeguards must be respected.

3. Judicial Scrutiny of ED Arrests
   High Courts can examine whether ED’s arrests were in line with procedure. Earlier, this power was unclear because PMLA was seen as a "special law".

 The Bigger Problem

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022), the SC had upheld broad ED powers. But post that judgment, a trend of arbitrary arrests began. Even critics of the government were raided, interrogated, and jailed — sometimes with flimsy evidence and no trial for years.

The conviction rate in ED cases remains under 1%, yet the fear of arrest is real and immediate.

 Rule of Law vs Rule by Law

The Court has now pushed back slightly. It’s not about protecting the accused but protecting the fairness of the legal process.

This judgment reiterates:

“Agencies must operate within the boundaries of law — not above it.”

ED’s powers aren’t being removed, but accountability and transparency are being restored. After all, a just legal system is one where even the prosecutor follows the law.