Calling Out the ED’s Actions, The Media Trials

In 2024–25, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched high-profile raids and probes in alleged liquor and corruption cases in Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, triggering media trials before courts examined the evidence. 

• Subsequent judicial scrutiny revealed serious procedural lapses and the agency’s overreach.

Case Study: Akash Bhaskaran and the “TASMAC Scam” Narrative

• Media Trial Before Evidence: Sections of the media projected Akash Bhaskaran as a key accused in the alleged ₹1,000-crore TASMAC scam (Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation) without judicial findings, airing unverified claims and political narratives, thereby shaping public opinion without proof.
• ED’s Coercive Actions: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) raided Bhaskaran’s home, seized digital devices, sealed an associate’s premises, and issued summons, even though no clear scheduled offence was established before the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) was invoked.
• Judicial Correction and Federal Check: The Madras High Court held that there was no credible link to any scheduled offence, stayed all proceedings, ordered the return of seized items, ruled that the sealing and summons were illegal, and the ED withdrew its actions with an unconditional apology.
  • The Supreme Court later stayed fresh summons, noting the ED was “crossing all limits” and violating federal principles.

Technical Powers under PMLA 2002

• Scheduled Offence: Under the PMLA, a “predicate” or scheduled offence (such as kidnapping or theft) must first exist for the ED to investigate the laundering of that illegal money. The ED often reverses this logic, searching for money first and finding a crime later.
• Pattern of Enforcement: A familiar sequence has emerged: search and arrest first, investigate later, leak selectively to friendly media, and retreat when courts demand evidence.
• Section 50: The ED can summon anyone and record statements under oath without clarifying whether the person is a witness or an accused.
  • People are kept waiting for hours under psychological pressure, and there have been allegations of physical assault in custody.
  • Despite Supreme Court directions for audio-visual recording of interrogations, proceedings are accused of being only selectively recorded, weakening transparency and judicial review.
  • This is criticised as a violation of Article 20(3) on the right against self-incrimination.
• Sections 17 (Searches and Seizures): Searches are conducted on flimsy grounds, even though courts have held that rumours and vague allegations do not constitute credible information.
  • Raids have been conducted even on state-run institutions on such grounds.
• Section 19 (Arrest Without Warrant): Arrests are justified on the vague ground of “non-cooperation,” often meaning refusal to endorse the agency’s narrative.
  • Bail under PMLA is notoriously difficult.
• Presumption of Guilt: Unlike standard law, which holds that one is “innocent until proven guilty,” the PMLA operates on a “guilty until proven innocent” basis.
• Attachment and Freezing of Assets: Properties are provisionally attached, and businesses are crippled before trial.
  • Even when cases collapse, attached properties are often not released, including assets acquired long before the alleged offence.
• Judicial Status of the Law: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India upheld many PMLA provisions, but the verdict is under review and hearings have not commenced, leaving citizens exposed to unchecked power.

Corruption and Lack of Accountability: 

• Documented Arrests of ED Officers: Several instances of ED officers being arrested for bribery (2023–2025) in Tamil Nadu, Mumbai, Odisha, and West Bengal are noted, suggesting that absolute power has led to corruption within the agency.
• Weak Institutional Response: Authorities rely on suspensions and press releases instead of structural reform. Repeated extortion charges against the anti-money-laundering agency weaken its credibility and public trust.
• Judicial Concern: Supreme Court benches have questioned whether the agency uses PMLA to prolong incarceration rather than secure convictions.
  • Courts have warned that the fight against corruption cannot itself become lawless.

Way Forward

• Media Responsibility: Reporting allegations based on leaks and internal communications without verification amounts to complicity.
  • Journalism must verify independently and resist becoming a conduit for politically motivated allegations.
• Citizen Scepticism: The ED’s status as a central agency does not guarantee infallibility, and its recent record reflects overreach and poor investigation. The Citizens are entitled to demand evidence rather than theatrics.
• Rule of Law Imperative: Money-laundering laws must protect financial integrity, not function as tools of intimidation.
• Role of Courts: Courts must urgently define limits on ED powers and reinforce citizens’ rights.
  • Only firm constitutional guardrails can prevent investigative authority from becoming an arbitrary state power.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Conclusion

If the CBI was once described as a caged parrot, the ED today resembles a hound let loose. Each weak case normalises authoritarian overreach, and every media trial corrodes institutional trust. 

• Reversing this institutional rot is essential to safeguard the rule of law and the health of India’s democracy.

DOWNLOAD PDF