New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday strongly objected to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) keeping Indian Telecommunication Service officer Arun Kumar Tripathi in custody despite the Chhattisgarh High Court quashing the order taking cognizance of the complaint against him under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A bench comprising Justices A.S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan directed Tripathi’s release on bail, emphasizing that “the concept of the PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person should remain in jail.”
Legal Ruling and High Court Decision
Tripathi was arrested by the ED on August 8, 2024, in connection with the Chhattisgarh liquor scam. However, on February 7, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the Special Court’s order taking cognizance of the complaint was invalid as no prior government sanction had been obtained for his prosecution. The High Court based its decision on a precedent set by a two-judge Supreme Court bench led by Justice Oka on November 6, 2024, which clarified that Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)—mandating government sanction for prosecuting public servants—applies to PMLA cases as well.
Supreme Court’s Reprimand of ED
Questioning the ED’s actions, Justice Oka directly asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, “If cognizance has been quashed, why should the accused be in jail?”
In response, Raju argued that the quashing of the cognizance order did not render Tripathi’s arrest illegal. He further stated that the ED had now obtained the necessary sanction and had reapplied for cognizance.
Expressing concern over the agency’s approach, Justice Oka remarked, “The concept of PMLA cannot be to ensure that a person remains in jail. If this is the ED’s tendency—to keep a person in custody even after cognizance is quashed—what message does it send?” Drawing a parallel with the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, he warned against a pattern of detentions without legal standing.
Raju defended the ED’s actions, asserting that “crooks cannot get away on technicalities.” He alleged that Tripathi and other officials “ran a parallel liquor business and siphoned off money to Dubai.” However, the bench pointed out that Tripathi had not been convicted and could not be held indefinitely under such circumstances.
Court’s Final Ruling
In its order, the Supreme Court stated that in light of the High Court’s decision, Tripathi’s continued custody was unjustified. The bench directed his release on bail and clarified that it would now be up to the Special Court to determine the validity of the sanction obtained by the ED.
This ruling marks a significant rebuke of the agency’s handling of the case and reinforces judicial scrutiny over the procedural integrity of PMLA prosecutions.
.png)
The opinions posted here do not belong to 🔰www.indiansdaily.com. The author is solely responsible for the opinions.
As per the IT policy of the Central Government, insults against an individual, community, religion or country, defamatory and inflammatory remarks, obscene and vulgar language are punishable offenses. Legal action will be taken for such expressions of opinion.