National

Explained: Why The Supreme Court Is Reconsidering The Enforcement Directorate바카라™s Powers? What Is The Case?

With increasing scrutiny over the ED's role and its expanding influence, this is one of the most consequential legal reviews in recent years.

Central investigation agency Enforcement Directorate (Representational Image)
Central investigation agency Enforcement Directorate (Representational Image) Photo: PTI
info_icon

The Supreme Court of India has reconstituted a three-judge Bench to revisit its 2022 ruling that gave sweeping powers to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The new Bench바카라”comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh바카라”will hear the matter on May 7, 2025.

This follows months of delays and adjournments in a case that has raised major constitutional concerns. The review will not be treated as an appeal, but rather as a legal re-examination of whether fundamental rights are being compromised under current ED practices.

What Was The 2022 Ruling About?

In July 2022, a Supreme Court Bench led by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (now retired) upheld key amendments to the PMLA made through the Finance Act of 2019. These changes allowed the ED to:

- Arrest individuals without showing them a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR)

- Conduct searches and raids without needing to meet the same thresholds as in ordinary criminal investigations

- Shift the burden of proof to the accused in bail hearings

The 545-page judgment described the PMLA as a 바카라œunique law바카라 essential for fighting the global threat of money laundering, but critics say it tilted the scales too far in favour of the state.

Why Is The Supreme Court Reviewing It Now? What Is The Case?

More than 240 petitions were filed against the amendments and their interpretation by the court. Petitioners바카라”including politicians like Karti Chidambaram and represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and A.M. Singhvi바카라”argue that the judgment has:

- Undermined basic legal safeguards like access to charges against the accused

- Made bail almost impossible, especially due to the 바카라œtwin conditions바카라 that require the accused to prove they are not guilty

- Turned the process into punishment, where long incarceration happens even before trial

- The petitioners claim this has led to misuse of the law, often targeting political opponents or dissenters.

Under the current law, a person accused under the PMLA can only be granted bail if they can prove their innocence even before trial; and the court is satisfied that they are not likely to commit any further offence if released

With increasing scrutiny over the ED's role and its expanding influence, this is one of the most consequential legal reviews in recent years.

×