The Supreme Court’s recent order limiting the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power to arrest individuals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) aligns with its commitment to upholding the right to life and personal freedom.

In this landmark ruling, the court stated that the ED cannot arrest a person once a special court has taken cognisance of the complaint. Instead, if the ED requires custody, it must seek the court's approval. The ruling also clarified that if an accused responds to a summons, they are not considered to be in custody and, therefore, do not need to apply for bail.

The court emphasized that the ED must provide specific reasons when seeking custody of an accused from the court. Additionally, an accused appearing before a special court may be exempt from future personal appearances.

This judgement is significant due to the arbitrary application of the PMLA by the ED, which has been criticized for its draconian measures. The stringent conditions for bail under the PMLA make it exceedingly difficult for the accused to secure release, as they must prove their innocence and assure the court they will not reoffend. Consequently, many individuals remain in custody for extended periods, even with low conviction rates.

The ED has been particularly zealous in its use of arrest powers, often targeting opposition politicians. Notable figures like AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal have faced ED actions, with some obtaining bail while many others languish in jail due to repeated bail denials.

The Supreme Court’s decision to curtail the ED’s arrest powers is a welcome development. Arresting a citizen involves critical constitutional and human rights, and thus, the power to arrest must be exercised judiciously.

In previous rulings, the Supreme Court has consistently stated that even a day of unjustified curtailment of freedom is unacceptable. This recent judgement addresses whether an accused in a money laundering case must meet the stringent twin-test for bail post-cognisance by a special court.

By restricting the ED's power to arrest after a complaint is filed, the court has safeguarded the rights to life and personal liberty, limiting the scope of the PMLA to infringe upon fundamental rights.