In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court, on December 15, declared that the directive requiring the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to provide written grounds for arrest at the time of detention, as established in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, does not apply retroactively. The bench, comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, emphasized that failure to provide grounds until the date of the Pankaj Bansal judgment, made on October 3, 2023, cannot be deemed unlawful.
The court altered the landscape further by asserting that informing the accused in writing about the grounds of arrest is not obligatory at the time of detention. Instead, the grounds must be orally communicated during the arrest, with a written explanation to be furnished within 24 hours.
The judgment delved into Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that the accused should be informed of the grounds of arrest “as soon as may be.” The court interpreted this timeframe as “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or within a “reasonably convenient” and “requisite” period—concluding that the 24-hour window post-arrest aligns with these requirements.
Justice Trivedi, in the written judgment, argued, “The person asserted, if orally informed about the grounds at the time of arrest and provided with a written communication within 24 hours, would be sufficient compliance with not only Section 19 of PMLA but also Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.”
The ruling also invoked the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, underscoring that observations by benches of lesser strength on Section 19 are not binding, as the three-judge bench in Vijay Madanlal had already validated its compliance with Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court firmly rejected the contention that the Pankaj Bansal judgment should have retrospective effect. It pointed out that the use of the term “henceforth” in the judgment implied that the requirement of providing written grounds of arrest was not mandatory until the judgment’s pronouncement date.
This decision comes amid divergent views in High Courts, with the Punjab & Haryana High Court deeming Pankaj Bansal retrospective, while the Bombay High Court held otherwise. The Supreme Court’s verdict dismissed an appeal by Supertech Chairman Ram Kishor Arora, challenging the Delhi High Court’s affirmation of his arrest in a money laundering case by the Enforcement Directorate. Arora claimed a violation of his fundamental rights, but the court found no illegality in his arrest.
