Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthilbalaji, who is currently facing money-laundering charges in connection with a cash-for-jobs scam, has challenged the enforcement powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in the Supreme Court. Claiming that the ED does not have the authority to seek his police custody, Senthilbalaji argued that the anti-money laundering law requires the ED to gather evidence, complete its inquiry, and establish a person’s guilt before making an arrest.
Representing Senthilbalaji before a bench of Justices A.S. Bopanna and M.M. Sundresh, senior advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act allows the ED only 24 hours to confront the arrested person with collected material before presenting them before a magistrate. Sibal asserted that the magistrate’s role is limited to deciding whether the accused should be granted bail or remanded in judicial custody and that police custody and further interrogation are unnecessary.
The Madras High Court had previously upheld the ED’s power to seek police remand for Senthilbalaji, leading to his appeal before the Supreme Court. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, urged the court to expedite the decision, pointing out that if the ED succeeded in its appeal, the 60-day maximum police remand period allowed under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) would expire soon.
During the hearing, Sibal argued that ED officers do not have the same authority as police officers and therefore cannot request custody. He emphasized that the Cr.PC only grants magistrates the power to authorize remand when an accused is produced by a police officer. Justice Sundresh questioned Sibal’s argument, noting that the ED had never claimed to be police officers per se and was seeking to uphold its powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
The Supreme Court will continue to hear the appeals filed by Senthilbalaji and his wife, Megala, and no further interrogation can occur until the court reaches a decision.
