📷 Image Credits: Moneycontrol
The recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the Arvind Kejriwal case has set new legal standards for arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The bench of justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta emphasized that arrests cannot be made arbitrarily and on the whims and fancies of authorities. The court highlighted the importance of exercising the power to arrest cautiously to prevent severe repercussions on the life and liberty of individuals. The interim bail granted to Kejriwal in connection with the excise policy case has sparked a discussion on the balance between effective law enforcement and protecting individual rights. The court referred to the need for valid ‘reasons to believe’, meeting the parameters prescribed by the law, as the basis for arrests. Additionally, the judgment underscored the significance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that the conditions for arrest under the PMLA are satisfied. The ruling also addressed the ED’s wide interpretation of phrases in the PMLA, emphasizing that the power to arrest should be rigid and restrictive. The court rejected arguments that grave suspicion is sufficient for arrest and highlighted the distinction between ‘reason to believe’ and ‘grave suspicion’. Furthermore, the judgment emphasized the need for ED officers to consider all material, including absolving evidence, before making an arrest. It noted that any selective picking and choosing of material by the officer could lead to legal malice and violate constitutional values. The court’s decision aims to prevent abuse and unauthorized use of the power to arrest, ensuring that arrests are made in accordance with the law and with due consideration to all relevant facts. The legal standards set in this judgment have far-reaching implications for law enforcement agencies and individuals, establishing clear guidelines for arrests under the PMLA.
