ED Moves Supreme Court Against Bombay High Court Order Declaring Former VVCMC Chief’s Arrest Illegal
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court of India, challenging the Bombay High Court’s order that declared the arrest of former Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC) chief Anilkumar Pawar as illegal and ordered his immediate release.
The ED, through a Special Leave Petition (SLP), has also sought a stay on the High Court’s order pending final adjudication. The plea is expected to be heard on Friday before the Supreme Court bench.
High Court’s Findings: Arrest Declared Illegal and Arbitrary
In a strongly worded order, the Bombay High Court bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad criticised the ED’s actions, terming the arrest “arbitrary, illegal and unsupported by evidence.”
The court observed that the arrest violated Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, as well as Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law, freedom of movement, and protection of life and personal liberty, respectively.
According to the judgment, as of August 13, 2025, when Pawar was arrested, the ED did not possess sufficient material to form the mandatory “reason to believe” that the accused had committed an offence under the PMLA. This, the court said, made the arrest unsustainable in law.
Background: Allegations of Corruption and Money Laundering
The case stems from a money laundering probe related to the construction of 41 illegal buildings in Vasai East, which were later demolished. The ED alleged that Pawar, during his tenure as VVCMC commissioner (2022–2025), led a cartel involving officers, architects, and agents, who collected bribes in exchange for granting illegal approvals and ignoring violations.
According to the agency, Pawar received over ₹17.75 crore through intermediaries, and WhatsApp chats and witness statements under Section 50 of the PMLA purportedly linked him to the proceeds of crime.
However, the High Court found the ED’s case speculative, holding that no direct evidence, money trail, or incriminating material was discovered. Even the search panchnama recorded by the agency stated that no unaccounted cash or documents were recovered from Pawar’s premises.
Court’s Criticism of ED Procedure
The High Court also noted that the ED’s “grounds of arrest” and “reasons to believe” were identical in language and content, indicating lack of independent application of mind by the arresting officer.
The bench remarked:
“The same and similar facts are reiterated in the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe. This demonstrates that there was no application of mind by the arresting officer.”
The court added that the absence of a predicate offence directly naming Pawar and the lack of recovery of proceeds of crime made the arrest contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and statutory safeguards under PMLA.
Legal Framework: Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
1. Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002
This section mandates that an authorised officer can arrest a person only if they have “reason to believe,” based on material in possession, that the person is guilty of a money laundering offence. The grounds of arrest must be recorded in writing and informed to the accused immediately.
In this case, the High Court ruled that no such credible material was available with the ED at the time of arrest, rendering the action unlawful.
2. Article 14 – Equality Before Law
The ED’s arbitrary action, the court held, violated the principle of equality and non-arbitrariness, a cornerstone of Article 14.
3. Article 19 – Right to Freedom
Arbitrary arrests impinge upon the freedom of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d).
4. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
The court held that any arrest without due process infringes upon the right to life and personal liberty protected under Article 21. Judicial precedents such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) reinforce that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Judicial Precedents
-
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld certain PMLA powers but clarified that “reason to believe” must be substantiated by evidence, not assumptions.
-
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020): The apex court reiterated that personal liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily, emphasising the need for judicial oversight in arrests.
-
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023): The Supreme Court mandated that ED must furnish written grounds of arrest to the accused; failure to do so renders the detention unconstitutional.
The High Court’s reasoning mirrors these precedents, highlighting procedural lapses and failure of the ED to justify Pawar’s arrest under the statutory framework.
Constitutional Context: Balance of Power and Liberty
The case brings into focus the delicate balance between state power and individual liberty. The judiciary, through its interventions, continues to assert that enforcement powers must not override fundamental rights.
The Bombay High Court’s order is a reminder of judicial vigilance against arbitrary executive action. It also reinforces the idea that investigative agencies must act within the confines of law, ensuring transparency and accountability in anti-corruption enforcement.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Check on Executive Overreach
The ED’s move to challenge the order before the Supreme Court signals a continuation of the legal battle. However, the Bombay High Court’s judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of constitutional morality and procedural fairness.
By invoking Articles 14, 19, and 21, and aligning its reasoning with established judicial precedents, the High Court has underscored that no agency, however powerful, can operate beyond the rule of law.
If upheld, the ruling could become a landmark precedent governing future arrests under the PMLA, reinforcing the primacy of due process and fundamental rights in India’s constitutional democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment