NEW DELHI: In a scathing attack on the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the Supreme Court on Thursday said the probe agency cannot "act like a crook," adding that its conduct must be "within the four corners of the law."
A three-judge bench of the top court, headed by Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Kotiswar Singh, remarked, "You (ED) cannot act like a crook. You have to work within the four corners of law. There is a difference between law-enforcing authorities and law-violating bodies."
The apex court stressed that it is concerned about the agency's image and opined that there is a difference between law enforcement agencies and those who violate the law.
Slamming the ED for its very low conviction rate, the court said, citing the data provided by the government in Parliament, "After 5,000 cases, less than 10 convictions. Why? We are equally concerned about the image of the ED."
The SC was hearing arguments and submissions on the maintainability of a batch of review petitions—filed by Karti P. Chidambaram and others—challenging the correctness of the 2022 Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (VMC) judgment, which upheld various PMLA provisions.
Replying to the top court’s questions, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, defended the agency and submitted that one of the reasons for the low conviction rate in PMLA cases is that the "rich and powerful use a powerful battery of lawyers and file so many applications." He added that these accused do not even allow the trial to take place and deliberately delay it.
On the maintainability of the review petitions, Raju sought the rejection of these pleas, arguing that they are, in effect, appeals disguised as reviews.
"If the review is accepted, it would be tantamount to rewriting the judgment of Vijay Madanlal, which cannot be permitted," he said.
Raju pleaded to the apex court that there was no ground made out by the petitioners to seek a review of the 2022 ruling.
The Supreme Court, on July 31, said it would first hear the arguments on the issue of maintainability of the petitions seeking a review of its July 2022 verdict that upheld the ED's powers to arrest, attach properties involved in money laundering, and carry out search and seizure under the PMLA.
It had, on May 4, 2025, reconstituted a new bench to hear the batch of review pleas filed against the VMC judgment, which upheld certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The VMC judgment was delivered on July 27, 2022, by a three-judge bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, and comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T. Ravikumar (all now retired). It upheld certain provisions, including Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the PMLA.
It also, in its July 27 verdict, upheld Section 24 of the PMLA, relating to the reverse burden of proof. Similarly, Section 45 of the PMLA, which provides “twin conditions” for bail, was upheld.
The court had delivered its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the process of arrest, investigation, and seizure carried out by the probe agency, ED, and seeking interpretation of provisions of the PMLA.
"The arguments of proportionality of punishment regarding scheduled offences is unfounded and rejected. All transfer petitions are disposed of and relegated to the High Court," the bench had said in its verdict.
Before the July 27 verdict, several petitions had been filed before the Supreme Court challenging the provisions of the PMLA. The petitioners had argued before the apex court that the powers of the enforcement agency to arrest, force confessions, and seize property were greatly unchecked.
The Centre, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the batch of petitions and sought their dismissal. The Centre defended the PMLA, stating that it is a special law that has laid down its own procedures and safeguards.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, had held that it was not mandatory for ED officers to disclose the grounds of arrest at the time of detaining an accused in a money laundering case.
Challenging the July 27, 2022 verdict, around eight petitions—including by Lok Sabha Member of Parliament (MP) Karti Chidambaram—had been filed in the top court seeking a review of it.