New Delhi: In a rebuke that could have wide-ranging implications, the Supreme Court on Monday criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for a “pattern” of filing cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) without presenting adequate evidence. The remarks came during a hearing on the bail plea of Arvind Singh, one of the accused in the ₹2,000-crore liquor scam case in Chhattisgarh (2019–2022).
A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan grilled Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, who appeared for the ED, over the lack of concrete evidence linking Singh directly to money laundering activities.
“We are observing that there is a pattern adopted by the Enforcement Department in a number of cases. You just make allegations without any evidence,” Justice Oka remarked sternly.
SC Challenges ED to Show Proof Linking Accused
Arvind Singh has been in custody as part of the ED’s investigation into the alleged multi-crore liquor scam, where several individuals are accused of receiving bribes and laundering illicit funds. Singh’s counsel has maintained that he has no direct role in the companies under scrutiny.
The bench was unconvinced by ED’s vague assertions and pushed Raju to explain the evidence basis for opposing bail. “You should state whether he is the director of those companies, whether he is a majority shareholder, whether he is the managing director. Something has to be there to link him… show his involvement,” the court said.
Raju argued that Singh was a key beneficiary who received kickbacks worth ₹40 crore in collusion with co-accused Vikas Agarwal, who is currently absconding. He claimed Singh exerted control over certain companies despite not holding formal titles — a common tactic in laundering operations. However, the bench was not satisfied and asked for concrete documentation, granting a brief adjournment to submit additional details.
‘Process Has Become the Punishment’: Court’s Broader Concern
This is not the first time the apex court has flagged concerns over the ED’s handling of PMLA cases. In a hearing on April 28, the same bench observed that although the ED had filed three chargesheets in the Chhattisgarh case, the investigation continued without end. The justices warned that such practices amounted to punishing the accused through indefinite incarceration.
“The investigation will go on at its own speed. It will go on till eternity… You are virtually penalising the person by keeping him in custody,” the bench had said. “This is not some case of terrorism or triple murder.”
The top court’s statements echo concerns raised by several opposition parties that the PMLA is being weaponised to suppress political dissent. The law, which places a high burden on the accused to secure bail and lacks clear procedural safeguards, has drawn criticism for undermining the presumption of innocence.
A Broader Call for Reform?
While the ED remains a critical investigative body for financial crimes, the Supreme Court’s remarks have added weight to calls for stricter oversight and reforms. Legal experts argue that without a clear regulatory framework, especially in politically sensitive cases, investigative excesses risk eroding public trust in law enforcement institutions.
Singh’s bail plea will be taken up again after the ED files its detailed response. However, the Supreme Court has once again sent a strong signal: the mere invocation of PMLA is not a substitute for solid, provable evidence.