Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji's plea challenging his custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a high-profile money laundering case. The apex court held that a writ of habeas corpus would not be maintainable for allegations of illegal arrest by the ED, emphasizing that such pleas should be directed to the concerned Magistrate as custody becomes a judicial matter.
A division bench comprising of Justice A S Bopanna and Justice M M Sundresh underscored that a writ of habeas corpus should only be issued when detention is proven to be illegal. The court highlighted that an order of remand by a judicial officer, constituting a judicial function, cannot be challenged through a writ of habeas corpus. Instead, individuals aggrieved by such orders should seek other statutory remedies.
The court clarified that a writ of habeas corpus may be entertained if there is non-compliance with mandatory provisions, along with a total lack of application of mind. However, the court maintained that orders passed by a Magistrate with well-defined reasons for remand cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, which deals with writ jurisdiction.
The court further elucidated that a challenge to an order of remand on merit must adhere to statutory provisions, whereas non-compliance with these provisions may warrant the invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction. The court cited the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee, (2018) 9 SCC 745 to reinforce its stance on the distinction between illegal detention due to non-compliance with statutory mandates and wrongful or inadequate reasons provided in a judicial order.
The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that a writ of habeas corpus would only be appropriate in cases where there is a failure to follow the mandates of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, and Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002. In the event of such non-compliance, the court stated that the writ could be entertained.
However, the court clarified that if an individual is arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 and subsequently produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as stipulated in sub-section (3), the remedy of a writ of habeas corpus would not be applicable. Instead, any claims of illegal arrest should be presented before the Magistrate, given the transition to judicial custody at that point.
The ruling holds substantial implications for cases involving alleged illegal arrests by enforcement agencies, emphasizing the importance of statutory remedies and proper compliance with legal procedures. The Supreme Court's decision aligns with a robust interpretation of the law while clarifying the boundaries of habeas corpus petitions in matters of arrest and custody.
Case Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors., Criminal Appeal Nos. 2284-2285 of 2023
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy