Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, before the Supreme Court, informed a special bench that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has recovered ₹23,000 crore in laundered money, which has been distributed to victims of financial crimes.
Appearing before a bench comprising Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Mehta stated that the recovered sums do not remain with the state exchequer but are redirected to those defrauded in financial scams. The remark came during a hearing on review petitions challenging the May 2 judgment related to the liquidation of Bhushan Power & Steel Limited (BPSL) and its earlier resolution plan by JSW Steel.
FCRF Launches India’s Premier Certified Data Protection Officer Program Aligned with DPDP Act
CJI Seeks Accountability Beyond Recovery
While acknowledging the scale of the ED’s financial recovery, the Chief Justice sought clarity on conviction rates in money laundering cases. Mehta conceded that the conviction rate remains low and attributed the issue to systemic deficiencies in the criminal justice system.
Justice Chandrachud, however, expressed concern that many accused in economic offences were being effectively punished through prolonged investigations, “sentenced almost without a trial.” This, he said, raises questions about procedural fairness, especially as multiple benches of the apex court have recently criticised ED’s conduct in high-profile political cases.
ED’s Tactics and Public Narratives Under the Lens
In a revealing anecdote, the Solicitor General stated that in some raids involving politicians, cash-counting machines stopped functioning due to the sheer volume of cash, adding that narratives are often built around such raids via YouTube programmes and social media.
The CJI responded sharply, asserting the Supreme Court does not decide matters on media narratives and reaffirmed judicial independence, noting that he only briefly reads headlines each morning and does not follow news channels.
The ED, which is tasked with probing serious financial crimes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), continues to face allegations of political bias and procedural overreach, especially in cases involving Opposition leaders. In a separate hearing on July 21, the Supreme Court had remarked that the agency was “crossing all limits” in its functioning.