In a significant judicial intervention, the Supreme Court has openly questioned the Enforcement Directorate’s conduct, highlighting concerns over federal imbalance, arbitrary arrests, and coercive tactics in cases involving opposition leaders across India. A report by Mudit Mathur
In a series of unprecedented and sharply worded observations, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the Enforcement Directorate (ED), questioning its methods and cautioning against the undermining of the constitutional balance of power between the Centre and the States. These developments come amid a flurry of investigations and arrests involving several high-profile opposition leaders, prompting concerns about the executive overreach and politically motivated enforcement actions.
The apex court’s recent pronouncements reflect a growing judicial discomfort with what it perceives as the weaponisation of investigative powers. At the heart of the matter lies a broader constitutional question: Can agencies of the central government act unilaterally in matters that deeply impact state’s functions and individual liberties, without sufficient procedural safeguards?
These developments occur amid allegations that the ED is being used to target opposition figures, with notable cases involving leaders like Arvind Kejriwal, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, and Hemant Soren. Critics argue that such actions threaten the democratic fabric by undermining the principle of federalism and the right to dissent.
The Enforcement Directorate, tasked with enforcing the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), has steadily expanded its footprint in recent years. However, critics have raised alarm over the agency’s disproportionate focus on opposition figures, with data indicating that more than 95% of political leaders under ED scrutiny since 2014 belong to non-ruling parties.
This perceived pattern prompted 14 opposition parties of India to file a joint petition in the Supreme Court in March 2023, seeking guidelines to curb what they described as the arbitrary use of central agencies like the ED and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petition proposed the application of a “triple test” before arrests: assessing whether the accused is a flight risk, whether they might tamper with evidence, or whether they could influence witnesses. The petitioners also urged the Court to reinforce the principle that bail should be the norm and jail an exception, particularly in non-violent economic offences. However, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea in April 2023, stating that no special treatment could be extended to politicians.
Nonetheless, the Court’s position has notably evolved since then, especially in light of individual cases that have brought the ED’s practices under critical judicial scrutiny.
Supreme Court’s key observations and orders:
May 22, 2025 – Federal structure undermined
The strongest criticism yet came during a hearing involving ED raids on the Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (Tasmac). The Supreme Court not only stayed the ED’s actions but also issued a stern warning, stating that the agency had “crossed all limits” and acted in “total violation of the federal structure of the Constitution.”
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai and Justice A G Masih expressed strong concerns about ED’s actions, repeating thrice that the agency was exceeding boundaries.” ED is crossing all limits,” said the apex court before staying proceedings post-ED raid on state-run liquor retailer.
The Court’s observations underlined that central agencies must exercise restraint and respect the jurisdictional boundaries of state governance. The bench stated, “The Constitution does not envisage a unitarist model. Any unilateral action by central agencies in state matters must pass the test of legality, necessity, and procedural propriety.”
May 5, 2025 – Pattern of vague allegations
While hearing a bail plea in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, Justice Abhay S. Oka made a telling remark about the ED’s approach: “We are seeing a pattern where the ED makes sweeping allegations, but the supporting material is either vague or non-existent.”
During a bail hearing for Arvind Singh, an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, the Supreme Court observed a recurring pattern where the ED made allegations without specific evidence. Justice Abhay S. Oka remarked that the ED often filed complaints lacking concrete material to support their claims, undermining the credibility of prosecutions.
This trend, the Court warned, sets a dangerous precedent where the sheer act of accusation can be wielded as punishment, devoid of the evidentiary rigour necessary in criminal jurisprudence.
January 3, 2025 – Condemnation of coercive interrogation
In a strong rebuke, the Supreme Court upheld a High Court ruling that quashed the arrest of former Haryana Congress MLA Surender Panwar. The ED had subjected Panwar to a marathon 15-hour interrogation in connection with an alleged illegal mining case, despite there being no conclusive evidence linking him to the alleged crime.
The Court described the ED’s conduct as “inhuman” and reflective of “abuse of power,” emphasising that coercive methods not only violate individual rights but also erode public confidence in law enforcement.
August 2024 – Right against self-incrimination
The Supreme Court held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot violate the fundamental right to silence an accused, already in judicial custody, by forcing him to make a self-incriminatory statement in another money laundering case probed by the same central agency. It ruled that the ED cannot compel an accused person, already in custody, to make statements in unrelated cases, reaffirming constitutional protections under Article 20(3).
March 20, 2024 – Indefinite detention without trial
The Court expressed concern over the practice of prolonged detention without trial in the case of Prem Prakash, allegedly linked to former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. Despite the filing of multiple supplementary chargesheets, the ED had failed to initiate the trial, effectively keeping the accused in prolonged custody.
“This amounts to a denial of justice and abuse of legal procedure,” the bench observed, reiterating that chargesheets must not become tools of indefinite incarceration.
The Supreme Court has flagged several systemic issues in the ED’s operations:
Denial of access to key documents: The Court has questioned why the ED routinely withholds key documents from accused individuals during bail proceedings. This practice, it noted, obstructs the fundamental right to a fair hearing and infringes upon Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih remarked, reserving orders in an appeal in a money laundering case, “Times have changed. To what extent can we say documents should be protected? Are we going to be so rigid that a person facing prosecution cannot access documents? Will this be justice?”
Lack of judicial oversight: The Court has hinted at the need for independent judicial oversight of ED actions, particularly in arrests, asset seizures, and custodial interrogations.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s observations are far-reaching. They provide constitutional ammunition to those who argue that central agencies have become tools of political vendetta. Leaders from the Congress, DMK, TMC, and other opposition parties have welcomed the Court’s interventions as timely and necessary to preserve the spirit of cooperative federalism.
Legal experts, too, see the Court’s evolving stance as a corrective mechanism. “We are witnessing a judicial realignment that places individual rights and constitutional balance above executive expediency,” said senior advocate Dushyant Dave.
At a time when political polarisation runs deep and the credibility of institutions is under strain, the Supreme Court’s assertiveness offers a much-needed institutional check. The ED may well continue its pursuit of financial offenders, but its methods will now face heightened scrutiny.
By upholding the principles of federalism, due process, and civil liberties, the Court has sent a clear message: the rule of law must prevail over political arithmetic. As the country approaches another electoral cycle, the judiciary’s insistence on constitutional fidelity could prove to be a calibrating balance in a turbulent democracy.
