The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union of India regarding a petition filed by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar. The Congress leader is challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and an ongoing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). While impleading the Centre in the matter, the court directed that the interim protection granted to Shivakumar against coercive action will remain in effect.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja heard the petition, which has been pending since 2022. The decision to make the Central Government a party came after the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, appearing for the ED, raised a preliminary objection. The ASG argued that a petition challenging a central enactment could not be maintained without the Union of India being a formal party to the proceedings.
In response, the court allowed the impleadment of the Centre and granted it four weeks to file its counter-affidavit. The bench noted that the matter had been pending for two years and that the issues for determination had already been flagged in 2022.
During the hearing, a brief friction arose regarding the stay on coercive action. Upon the court’s direction to continue the interim protection, ASG Raju stated he was withdrawing his earlier assurance of not taking steps against the senior politician.
However, the bench clarified that the protection was not based solely on a voluntary statement but was a court order. “Look at the manner in which the order has been passed… Till further orders, the respondent will be bound. Not that you are saying,” the bench remarked, emphasizing that the ED remains legally bound by the court’s directive.
D.K. Shivakumar moved the High Court in 2022, seeking to quash the entire investigation and the summons issued to him in an Enforcement Case Information Record (ECIR) registered in 2020. This probe followed an alleged disproportionate assets case initiated by the CBI.
Shivakumar’s petition rests on several legal contentions:
- Double Jeopardy: He alleges that the ED is re-investigating the same offence it had already probed in a 2018 case, calling it an “abuse of process of law” and a “malafide exercise of power.”
- Constitutional Validity: He has challenged the inclusion of Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Criminal misconduct by a public servant) within the Schedule of the PMLA.
- Legal Redundancy: The plea argues that Section 13 is a “complete code” that already addresses the laundering of ill-gotten wealth, and therefore, it cannot be subjected to a separate PMLA probe.
The Enforcement Directorate has strongly opposed the plea. The agency maintains that the two ECIRs are distinct.
- The 2018 case involved an alleged scheduled offence under Section 120B of the IPC, involving proceeds of crime worth ₹8.59 crore.
- The current investigation involves alleged disproportionate assets to the tune of ₹74.93 crore, spanning a check period from April 2013 to April 2018.
The ED contended that at the investigation stage, pleas of “double jeopardy” are premature. It further argued that it is impermissible to grant what is essentially “final anticipatory bail” through an interim order in a petition challenging the validity of a statute.
The court has scheduled the next hearing for July 23.
