In an far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court has refused to accept arguments to clip the powers of the Enforcement Directorate in investigations into money laundering cases – cases that involve huge piles of unaccounted wealth in the hands of vested interests. Justice AN Khanwilkar, who retired as judge of the Supreme Court on Friday after a six-year-stint, passed the order shortly before his exit, affirming the discretionary (special) powers vested in ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (2002). This was a keenly watched judgment as over 200 heavyweight petitioners had engaged themselves in an epic battle against the central law.
The main argument against the law was that unchecked powers vested in an investigation agency meant a denial of the citizens’ right to fair trial. Justice Khanwilkar rejected the argument. Under the special provisions, obtaining bail will be difficult. The onus is on the accused to prove he’s innocent; not for the probe agency to prove he’s guilty. As is usual here, the legal fight against the central law has passed through phases. In 2018, the apex court struck down the bail-related harsh provision etc., by saying that these were “unconstitutional”. Thereon, the Centre passed a Finance Act, which retained the strict conditions for bail. Justice Khanwilkar ruled in favour of, this. Notably, the Modi government has, ever since it took charge in 2014, activated ED and unleashed it on a whole lot of people accused of amassing wealth through foul means. Nearly 4,000 such cases have been filed and pursued in the past eight years though most of these cases are dragging as is usual with cases in Indian courts. During the UPA periods, ED had pursued only around 200 cases. Question now is, will the SC order ensure speedy trial of the cases and fix the guilty.
Prima facie, it could appear that the army of well-heeled vested interests failed to get the law on their side. There is some hope now, but the proof of the pudding is in its eating. The common man’s faith in the system is progressively eroding. Vested interests including those who engage in looting of the public exchequer and banks generally get away with their acts. While cases are dragged unendingly in the guise of investigations and trial, several loopholes surface for criminals to laugh their way out. Courts going on a merry-go-round in matters of serious national interest is both unacceptable and reprehensible. That Justice Khanwilkar understood the seriousness of the situation and took the case to its logical conclusion before his retirement is itself a soothing thought.
