Telangana HC: Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used as Substitute for Bail in PMLA Cases

In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court stressed the need to balance protection of individual liberty with the larger interest of society. The court held that while safeguarding constitutional rights remains essential, extraordinary writ jurisdiction must not be misused to obstruct investigations involving serious offences.

A division bench comprising Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda delivered the judgment while dismissing a writ petition filed by Pachipala Namratha, associated with a Hyderabad-based fertility centre. She had challenged her arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in connection with an alleged illegal surrogacy and child trafficking racket.

The bench observed that although personal liberty is a fundamental constitutional value, the legal framework of the PMLA is specifically structured to address serious financial crimes. It clarified that writ petitions challenging arrest cannot function as a substitute for bail proceedings or as a platform to assess evidentiary merits.

The court emphasised that judicial review in such cases is limited to examining the legality and procedural fairness of the arrest. Questions relating to evidence and factual disputes must be adjudicated by the trial court.

Namratha had sought to quash her February arrest and subsequent remand orders passed by the special sessions court, seeking immediate release. Her counsel alleged procedural lapses and violation of constitutional safeguards by ED officials.

Opposing the plea, ED’s senior standing counsel Dominic Fernandes argued that the petition was legally unsustainable. He contended that the petitioner selectively relied on precedents and suppressed material facts. Highlighting inconsistencies, he submitted that issues involving disputed facts require examination during trial and not under writ jurisdiction.

Taking note of the allegations, the High Court expressed serious concern over illegal surrogacy practices and child trafficking. It observed that vulnerable couples are often deceived, leading to severe consequences including identity distortion and legal complications for children.

While refusing to interfere with the ongoing proceedings, the court clarified that the petitioner remains free to seek appropriate remedies before the competent special court.