Editorial: At last, some tramlines for ED
The case itself was supposed to be about money laundering by the Chief Minister’s spouse, but since no money had changed hands and the land itself was returned, a two-judge bench of the apex court upheld an earlier verdict that the case had no legs to stand on.
Supreme Court
It was sweet music to the ears of the Union government’s critics when the Supreme Court put the Enforcement Directorate (ED) firmly in its place last week. Quashing a case against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife in the Mysuru land allotment case, Chief Justice of India B R Gavai spelt it out to the agency, “Political battles should be fought before the electorate. Why is the ED allowing itself to be used in such matters?”
The case itself was supposed to be about money laundering by the Chief Minister’s spouse, but since no money had changed hands and the land itself was returned, a two-judge bench of the apex court upheld an earlier verdict that the case had no legs to stand on.
The chief justice’s remarks to the ED’s counsel were a sharp rebuke of the agency, which has allowed itself to become an instrument in the hands of the Union government. At the same time, it was also a signal to the central government that the apex court would not let the legal process be reduced to a scheme to harass, intimidate, and handicap political opponents.
The Siddaramaiah case was not the only instance in recent days of the ED getting its ears boxed by the judiciary. On the same day as the Supreme Court rebuke, the Madras High Court used a delightfully contemporary turn of phrase to put the agency in its place. In a suit filed by a company against the freezing of its funds, the judges said ED was neither a "super cop" with a limitless mandate nor a "loitering munition" that can act without control.
There have been several other signals that the Enforcement Directorate’s indulgence is over. In multiple court hearings in recent weeks, notably in Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh, the agency has been told that it is "crossing all limits" and violating the country's federal structure by conducting raids and investigations in opposition-ruled states for political reasons.
In one hearing last week, the directorate was raked over the coals by Chief Justice Gavai for summoning advocates engaged by clients facing ED proceedings. Stating that such high-handed action compromises lawyer-client privilege and could have a chilling effect on lawyers’ freedom to take up any brief, he said, "How can ED summon lawyers? ... Your ED is passing all limits!"
Not only is the Supreme Court drawing some much-needed tramlines for the agency, it is also throwing a glare onto the pattern of weak prosecutions launched only to harass defendants. The court has highlighted a consistent pattern of the ED making serious allegations without supporting evidence, and reminded the agency that justice requires cases to be established in court rather than just fit a media narrative.
It is welcome that the apex court is making the agency fall in line, albeit belatedly, after giving it a long rope until last year. For close on ten years, ED was allowed to use the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) at will—to serve not the purposes of the law but the political needs of the BJP-led Union government. During the ten years it had free rein, the ED registered 5,297 cases and managed to complete trial in only 47. In the guise of being the prosecuting arm of the Finance Ministry, it acted as the battering ram of the BJP.
