Case Summary: Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate Of Enforcement
(2024) 07 SC CK 0035
In The Supreme Court Of India
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 2493 Of 2024
Appellant: Arvind Kejriwal
Respondent: Directorate Of Enforcement
Date of Decision : 12-07-2024
Hon'ble Judges : Sanjiv Khanna, J ; Dipankar Datta, J
Bench : Division Bench
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/2369910-arvind-kejriwal-vs-directorate-of?s=&refine_search=&s_acts=
Citations:
(2024) 07 SC CK 0035
Facts of the Case:
The appeal challenged the Delhi High Court’s judgment upholding the arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Kejriwal was arrested on 21.03.2024 in connection with the alleged liquor excise policy scam. The case questions the legality of arrest, compliance with statutory safeguards under Section 19 of the PMLA, and constitutional protections under Articles 20, 21, and 22.
Law Points Raised:
1. Whether the arrest complied with Section 19(1) PMLA (requirement of reasons to believe, recorded in writing).
2. Whether failure to supply grounds of arrest immediately violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
3. Scope of judicial scrutiny by trial courts while reviewing legality of arrests under PMLA.
4. Impact of multiple supplementary prosecution complaints on validity of arrest.
5. Relationship between ECIR (not a public document) and due process safeguards.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred:
• Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 20, 21, 22(1), 22(5), 226, 227
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 41, 154, 164, 167, 437, 438, 439, 482
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 120B, 477A, 26
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Sections 7, 19(1), 19(3), 24, 45, 50, 70
• Customs Act, 1962 — Section 104
• Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 30, 145
Judgments Referred:
• Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929
• Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244
• V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024) 3 SCC 51
• Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) SCC OnLine SC 971
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 (bail principles)
Obiter Dicta:
The Court emphasized that Article 22(1) requires meaningful communication of arrest grounds. Section 19 of PMLA has built-in safeguards to prevent arbitrary arrests. Arrests without written 'reasons to believe' and without informing grounds would be unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi:
Arrests under Section 19 PMLA are valid only if:
• Material exists in possession of the officer,
• Reasons to believe are recorded in writing,
• Grounds of arrest are promptly communicated.
Failure to comply renders arrest and subsequent remand illegal.
Final Ruling:
The Supreme Court invalidated the arrest order for non-compliance with Section 19(1) PMLA safeguards. It held that liberty under Articles 21 and 22 cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to statutory procedure. The remand order dated 22.03.2024 was also quashed. Appeal allowed.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers:
Paras 2–7 (facts and issue), Para 8–9 (Section 19 requirements), Para 10–12 (precedents), Para 15 (final ruling).
Summary:
This landmark judgment reiterates that arrests under the PMLA must strictly comply with Section 19 safeguards. The Court quashed Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest, reinforcing due process, personal liberty, and accountability of enforcement authorities. It stands as a crucial precedent in money laundering prosecutions.