The Enforcement Directorate, better-known as ED, could arrest any citizen even without possessing any evidence of the alleged financial scam. It seemed to have the absolute right of arrest.
However, in a landmark judgment on October 3, the Supreme Court criticized the ED for ‘arbitrary exercise of power’ and said it must provide a written explanation of why it was making an arrest.
In its judgment in the case Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India, the apex court told the federal government categorically that there is no provision in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act which entitles the ED to arrest a person merely on allegations of a financial corruption/ scam.
So long the ED’s standard approach has been to justify arrest under the excuse of the alleged scamster’s non-cooperation to summons/in the investigation. But the court said the denial of guilt by a person cannot be construed as non-cooperation.
Rather, the court asked the ED to pay attention to three provisions which are clearly stated in the law –the reason for arrest must be clearly recorded in writing by the arresting officer; the arrest document must be properly signed; and the copy of the arrest document must be given to the accused person before the arrest.
The court reiterated there would be no exception to these stipulations. It reminded the ED that an accused is not a criminal, and an attempt to prove a charge against an accused does not mean that the charge has been proved. Therefore, to ensure the constitutional rights of a citizen, it is imperative for a democratic government to document that a citizen is being arrested on a specific provable charge and not out of retaliation.