Impact of Differing Supreme Court Rulings on ED’s Arrest Powers

Divergent Interpretations

• Two recent Supreme Court rulings shed light on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) powers of arrest, specifically regarding the provision of written grounds for arrest at the time of custody. While one bench criticized the lack of written grounds as an arbitrary exercise of power, another upheld it, providing insights into the interpretation of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Oral vs. Written Notification

• The recent ruling, delivered by Justices Bela Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, established that oral notification of arrest grounds suffices at the time of arrest. However, it emphasized the necessity of supplying the written grounds within 24 hours, interpreting “as soon as maybe” as a reasonably convenient or requisite period.

Case Background

• This ruling stemmed from a plea by Supertech Limited’s founder challenging a Delhi High Court order. The court dismissed the plea, highlighting the difference in interpretation between the October 3 ruling mandating written grounds and the subsequent July 27 decision favoring oral notification.

Retrospective Application

• Crucially, the December 15 judgment clarified that the October 3 ruling cannot be retroactively applied to cases preceding its pronouncement. It cited the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case of July 27, stating that orally informing the accused of arrest grounds suffices.

Precedence and Legal Clarity

• When differing rulings from benches of equal strength emerge, Indian legal practice lacks a specific guideline. While the Raghubir Singh ruling emphasized the binding nature of Division Bench statements, the Pradip Chandra Parija case suggested referral to a higher bench in cases of conflicting conclusions.
• These rulings offer valuable insights into the nuanced interpretation of arrest procedures under the PMLA, highlighting the complexities in reconciling divergent judicial opinions on similar legal questions.