The Supreme Court has raised strong concerns about the Enforcement Directorate’s authority to attach and seize assets without any prior judicial oversight. The comments came during a hearing on proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The bench noted that the ED can freeze properties and take coercive steps even at the investigation stage, long before a court has a chance to review whether the action is legal or necessary. The judges asked whether this lack of an immediate judicial check opens the door to arbitrary use of power and risks harming individuals whose guilt has not yet been established. They underscored that while tackling money laundering is vital, enforcement must stay within constitutional limits. Any state action that affects property rights should include safeguards and fair process.
The ED defended its actions by pointing to the PMLA’s structure, which allows an adjudicating authority to confirm attachments later. The Court, however, expressed doubt that a post-facto review is always enough, especially when assets remain frozen for long periods, causing financial strain and reputational harm.
The observations signal growing judicial unease about whether the current balance between enforcement and individual rights is adequate. The Court will continue examining whether stronger safeguards or more immediate judicial oversight are needed under the money laundering law.
WhatsAppPinterestFacebookEmailPrintGoogle TranslateShare
