The Supreme Court has issued a strong rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for what it deemed a misuse of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), likening it to the controversial misuse of the dowry prohibition laws. On Wednesday, a bench composed of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan granted bail to Arun Pati Tripathi, a former excise officer embroiled in a high-profile liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.
The justices expressed their astonishment and concern over the continued detention of Tripathi even after a Chhattisgarh High Court ruling had quashed the court order taking cognisance of the complaint against him. “The concept of PMLA cannot be that a person should remain in jail indefinitely. If the tendency is to keep the person in jail even after cognisance is quashed, what can be said?” questioned the bench.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, argued against granting bail, suggesting that offenders should not escape justice on technical grounds. Raju highlighted that the cognisance was quashed due to a lack of proper sanction, a point he argued was irrelevant to the bail decision.
The bench sharply criticized the ED’s approach, expressing shock that the agency was aware of the quashed cognisance yet chose to overlook it during the bail proceedings. “It is shocking that the ED knows the cognisance was quashed, yet this was suppressed. We should summon the officers. The ED must come clean,” declared the justices, signaling deep displeasure with the agency’s conduct.
Tripathi, who had been serving on deputation as special secretary and managing director of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited, was arrested following an ED investigation. The investigation was initiated based on allegations of a criminal syndicate involving senior government officials, private individuals, and political executives, accused of manipulating the state’s excise policies to generate illicit profits from the liquor trade.
This ruling from the apex court highlights concerns over the potential for abuse of the PMLA and underscores the judiciary’s vigilance in upholding due process, even in cases involving high-level corruption and economic offenses.
