{"id":399257,"date":"2026-10-20T09:00:21","date_gmt":"2026-10-20T03:30:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=399257"},"modified":"2026-10-19T18:22:57","modified_gmt":"2026-10-19T12:52:57","slug":"pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/","title":{"rendered":"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

An analysis of the conflicting High Court approaches to challenges against arrests under Section 19<\/a> of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a>, examining the Supreme Court’s recent reluctance to settle questions concerning arrest legality, judicial review, remand safeguards and the limits of bail as a remedy.<\/p>\n

The court that won’t bell the cat<\/p>\n

Section 19<\/a>, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a> (PMLA<\/a>) has, over the last two years, produced High Court law that is now openly at conflict with itself. Some High Courts consider an illegal arrest as a distinct constitutional wrong that a writ court must examine. Others consider the same challenge as a “short circuit route” and send the accused to seek bail to the same Special Court, whose remand orders are usually mechanical and rarely engages with the question of legality of arrest. There are judgments of High Court which hold that non summoning of an accused before arrest is an illegality vitiating the arrests, in facts and circumstances of a case, while there are judgments holding completely opposite.<\/p>\n

Amidst such conflicting High Court judgments, a pertinent question arises that: Where is the Supreme Court and why the court is not settling the position of law or setting aside judgments which are bad in law? Any concrete Supreme Court intervention appears to be missing from the picture. Not because the question has not reached it. It has, repeatedly. Although, the court is precluding itself from indulging with it, in the recent past.<\/p>\n

A number of special leave petitions (SLP) filed against High Court orders that refused to quash the PMLA<\/a> arrests, have come up before the court in the recent past. In almost every one of them, the court has shown reluctance to examine key legal issues surrounding legality of arrests. The closest it has come is Arvind Walia<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>1<\/sup><\/a>, where an appeal filed against the arrest itself was, in substance, converted into an application for bail. The good thing is that the accused is not asked to start again from the jurisdictional Special Court and bail is rather granted by the Supreme Court itself. But the aspect that need consideration is why the appellant was released on bail, only after he spent roughly eight months in custody and why not because the court had tested the arrest against Section 19<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> and thereafter declared the arrest to be legal or illegal, which was in fact, the core issue before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Data on PMLA arrets<\/p>\n

Any argument for closer scrutiny of PMLA<\/a> arrests has to correspond with what the numbers actually show. On 4 August 2026, the Minister of State for Finance told the Rajya Sabha that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) between 2021—2022 and 2025—2026 arrested 1243 persons and has secured conviction of 104 persons which is actually a fraction of 1 per cent of the cases registered.3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

The purpose of setting out these figures is to highlight a grave concern: where convictions are so few and take years to materialise, while the consequences of arrest operate long before, and often irrespective of, the eventual outcome of the prosecution, any arrest that is illegal must be nipped in the bud at the first instance.<\/p>\n

Divergent views of High Courts<\/p>\n

Nothing illustrates the dichotomy better than two judgments passed within weeks of each other in mid-2026.<\/p>\n

In Deepak Singh<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>4<\/sup><\/a>, the Karnataka High Court quashed the arrest of three founders of the online gaming company Gameskraft. The court while quashing the arrest on the basis of necessity of arrest, illegality of arrest and other jurisdictional issues held that the existence of a bail application, cannot erect a jurisdictional barrier against the exercise of constitutional review where the legality of arrest itself is under challenge.<\/p>\n

Barely two months earlier, the Telangana High Court reached the opposite conclusion in Pachipala Namratha<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>5<\/sup><\/a>. The Division Bench held that a writ petition challenging arrest is a “short circuit route” to secure bail. Unfortunately, the SLP carried against the Telangana judgment before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.6<\/sup><\/a> Thus, the Supreme Court again refused to interfere.<\/p>\n

Pertinently, what is troubling about the Telangana judgment and dismissal of its SLP is not merely its conclusion but the very fact that the core legal fallacy remained uncorrected. The petitioner in the High Court had pointed out that the Special Court, while remanding her, had not applied its mind to whether the statutory conditions of Section 19(1)<\/a> had in fact been satisfied and the remand order does not reflect formation of “secondary opinion” of the court on the reasons to believe recorded by the ED officer, a mandatory condition spelt out in unambiguous terms in the judgment of Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>7<\/sup><\/a>. That submission was noted and set aside without any real engagement. The Supreme Court ought to have intervened to correct this legal error and reaffirm that the statutory safeguards under Section 19<\/a> cannot be diluted at the stage of remand.<\/p>\n

The reluctance of the Supreme Court is writ large from another case emanating from Bombay High Court8<\/sup><\/a> where the court failed to examine the very jurisdictional question as to whether a scheduled offence added through an addendum, which emanates from a distinct transaction or event be added to modify the scope of inquiry\/investigation of the ED and be the basis to effect arrests under Section 19<\/a> PMLA<\/a>. This matter too reached the Supreme Court, but unfortunately, the legal jurisdictional issue remained unanswered and the SLP was again dismissed.9<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Chaitanya Baghel<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>10<\/sup><\/a> by the Chhattisgarh High Court and Gameskraft<\/span><\/span><\/a>11<\/sup><\/a> by the Karnataka High Court are also testament of divergence of views. The facts in Chaitanya Baghel<\/a><\/span><\/span> were that the accused was not arrested despite years of registration of case and months of search and seizure by the ED. In a case where there was no opportunity given to cooperate and the arrest was alleged to be laced with delay and non-necessity, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that arrest, in absence of furnishing summons under Section 50<\/a> PMLA<\/a>, is not an illegality. While the Karnataka High Court in Gameskraft<\/span><\/a>, a case arising from similar circumstances as that in Chaitanya Baghel<\/a><\/span> held that where the ED had the statutory power to summon the accused under Section 50<\/a> PMLA<\/a> and secure their participation in the investigation, then if no summons had been issued or opportunity to cooperate afforded, then subsequent arrest could not be justified merely by the existence of the power to arrest, particularly when there was no occasion to conclude that the accused had obstructed or refused to cooperate with the investigation.<\/p>\n

The issue was carried further to the Supreme Court by special leave in Chaitanya Baghel<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>; but with the High Court granting him bail,12<\/sup><\/a> the challenge resulted into fait accompli, and the SLP was disposed as being infructuous13<\/sup><\/a> post issuance of notice. Once again, no law could be settled.<\/p>\n

The confusing judgment in Radhika Agarwal<\/span><\/p>\n

Instead of resolving the dichotomy in conflicting cases or setting aside judgments of the High Court which are contrary to the law that is already settled, some of the judgments or opinion of Judges of the Supreme Court seem to be inherently conflicting.<\/p>\n

One such case is Radhika Agarwal<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>14<\/sup><\/a> , where the issue was in relation to the power to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962<\/a> and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017<\/a> (CGST Act), not the PMLA<\/a>, yet the judgment is causing significant impact in deciding the legality of arrest by High Courts in PMLA<\/a> cases.<\/p>\n

The majority opinion authored by the then Chief Justice on behalf of himself and Justice Sundresh held that the principles laid down in Arvind Kejriwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>15<\/sup><\/a>, emanating from PMLA<\/a> arrests, apply equally to arrests under the Customs and GST regimes, and that courts would exercise judicial review to quash arbitrary and illegal arrests. Whereas, Justice Bela Trivedi’s separate opinion holds that the power of judicial review over PMLA<\/a> arrests ought to be exercised “very cautiously and in rare circumstances”. A holistic reading of the entire opinion of Justice Trivedi practically circumscribes the power of judicial review and, in substance, suggests that the decision of an officer of the ED ought not ordinarily to be interdicted by the court.<\/p>\n

Interestingly, the concurring opinion of Justice Bela Trivedi in Radhika Agarwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>16<\/sup><\/a> is increasingly cited by the ED and different High Courts to deny the exercise of judicial review to quash PMLA<\/a> arrests. But there are two problems with treating Justice Trivedi’s observations as controlling law on the scope of review. First<\/span>, on the specific question of judicial review, her opinion was not joined by either of the other two Judges; it therefore does not command the assent of the majority of the Bench, and cannot supersede or dilute the reasoning of the two-Judge opinion. Where a Bench renders more than one opinion converging on the same outcome, the “law declared” for the purposes of Article 141<\/a>17<\/sup><\/a> is the reasoning that commands the concurrence of the majority of the Judges and not the additional or divergent reasoning of a Single Judge writing separately. Second<\/span>, the batch of petitions that led to Radhika Agarwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>18<\/sup><\/a> was de-tagged from the group of matters that led to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>19<\/sup><\/a>, which shows that the court was dealing with issues under different enactments, decided independently of the PMLA<\/a> matters; there was no occasion and necessity to lay down any restrictive standard for PMLA<\/a> arrests while dealing with a distinct statutory scheme under Customs and GST law.<\/p>\n

Therefore, courts would be committing a fundamental error in treating Justice Trivedi’s observations as the law on the scope of judicial review, and in declining to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction on that basis. The correct position remains that where an arrest is made contrary to the statutory scheme of the PMLA<\/a> or in violation of constitutional safeguards, the arrest is liable to be quashed.<\/p>\n

What makes a PMLA arrest different?<\/p>\n

A regular arrest under Section 41(1)<\/a>, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (CrPC<\/a>) can be based on reasonable suspicion, whereas an arrest under Section 19<\/a> PMLA<\/a> cannot. The ED officer must record, in writing, reasons to believe, on the basis of material in his possession that the person is “guilty” of an offence under the Act<\/a>. The officer making arrest under PMLA<\/a> has to discharge a higher degree of burden, not only due to the conditions under Section 19<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, but also in view of stringent bail conditions under Section 45<\/a>20<\/sup><\/a>, which mandates that, even prior to trial or filing of any prosecution complaint by the ED, the accused must satisfy twin conditions, demonstrating that he is not guilty of an offence under the Act<\/a> and also, he will not commit such crime while on bail. When the bail can only be secured after passing such rigours, the officer making such arrest under the Act<\/a> must record reasons, based on tangible material, showing culpability of the accused.<\/p>\n

The judgment in Arvind Kejriwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>21<\/sup><\/a> holds that the arrest under PMLA<\/a> is not for the purposes of investigation. Moreover, the officer making arrest must also satisfy the four sub-conditions under Section 41(1)(b<\/span>)(ii<\/span>)<\/span><\/a> CrPC<\/a>. The court has further held that the arrest cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate. Neither it can be based on only inculpatory material while ignoring exculpatory material in favour of the accused.<\/p>\n

None of this suggests that a PMLA<\/a> arrest to be measured against the yardstick of an ordinary arrest. A challenge under Section 482<\/a> [Section 528<\/a>, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (BNSS<\/a>)] or Articles 226<\/a>\/227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a> to an arrest of this kind is not, therefore, an alternative or a shortcut to bail. It tests a different thing entirely, which is the officer’s jurisdiction to have acted at all. That is why the findings of the Telangana High Court in Pachipala Namratha<\/span><\/a>22<\/sup><\/a> are inherently flawed.<\/p>\n

What is the root cause of this problem?<\/p>\n

Every person arrested under the PMLA<\/a> has to be produced before the Special Court under Section 19(3)<\/a>23<\/sup><\/a> for remand. The Constitutional Courts of our country would not be burdened, if the issue of illegality of arrests is efficaciously addressed by the remand courts at that stage itself.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court has been unambiguous about what the Special Court is supposed to do at that stage. In Pankaj Bansal<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>24<\/sup><\/a>, it held that the grounds of arrest must be furnished to the accused in writing, and that failure to do so vitiates the arrest. In V. Senthil Balaji<\/span> v. State<\/span><\/span><\/a>25<\/sup><\/a> and again in Arvind Kejriwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>26<\/sup><\/a>, it held that the Special Court cannot simply take the ED’s word for it and the Magistrate or Special Judge must independently apply his mind to the reasons to believe recorded by the arresting officer, and form his own “secondary opinion” on whether the conditions of Section 19<\/a> have actually been satisfied, before authorising remand. But unfortunately, such safeguard has been converted in a ministerial exercise, in reality.<\/p>\n

One of the key differences between a challenge to arrest and the filing of a bail application is that, when an arrest by the ED is challenged, the remand orders passed by the Special Court are also assailed on the ground that the remand itself is illegal, particularly where the Special Court has failed to examine the conditions under Section 19<\/a> of the Act<\/a> and has granted remand mechanically. If the legality of the arrest is tested at this stage itself, petitions challenging arrest and remand before the High Courts would substantially reduce. The failure of the remand court to form its “secondary opinion” on the reasons to believe formulated by the ED and to test compliance with Section 19<\/a> of the Act<\/a> was the very argument raised before the Telangana High Court in Pachipala Namratha<\/span><\/span><\/a>27<\/sup><\/a>, which the court simply brushed aside on omnibus reasons. When the remand orders themselves were under challenge, the High Court could not have dismissed the challenge by terming it a “short circuit route”, particularly when it exercises its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary<\/span><\/span><\/a>28<\/sup><\/a> sets out the three foundational facts that must be discernible from the record before an allegation of money laundering can stand at all: that a criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has in fact been committed; that property has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of that criminal activity; and that the person concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in a process or activity connected with that property being projected as untainted. This is in tandem with the requirement of written reasons by the ED to arrive at the conclusion of “guilt” of an individual proposed to be arrested.<\/p>\n

A remand order that does not test the arrest against these three ingredients read with the conditions of Section 19<\/a>, even prima facie, is illegal. If that is not done at the stage of remand, the mandate of formulation of a “secondary opinion” cannot be attained. Since grant of bail has to meet the tests under Section 45<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the arrest and remand have to, naturally, be in exceptional circumstances, based on material of sterling quality and tangibility.<\/p>\n

The judgment in Anilkumar Khanderao Pawar<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>29<\/sup><\/a> has held that the material on the basis of which arrest has been made must be “tangible” and the case which rest on witness statements and WhatsApp records fall short of what Section 19<\/a> requires. The ED’s SLP against this judgment also stands dismissed.30<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

Why bail is not an efficacious remedy?<\/p>\n

A challenge to the arrest is a different exercise altogether. The onus there sits with the ED to show that the conditions of Section 19<\/a> were actually satisfied: written reasons to believe, based on the whole of the material, demonstrating necessity and proportionality and with the Special Court to show that it assessed the requirements under Section 19<\/a> PMLA<\/a> and has discharged its duty to independently form opinion on the reasons for arrest before granting remand.<\/p>\n

The distinction matters most where the illegality in the arrest is jurisdictional. In that case, the remedy of bail is simply inefficacious. Several recent judgments illustrate the point. In the Gameskraft<\/span><\/span><\/a>31<\/sup><\/a> matter itself, part of the challenge turned on whether a fresh Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) or an addendum, registered on largely the same facts as an earlier one under which no arrest had been thought necessary, could resurrect a jurisdiction that had effectively lapsed. The court held that when arrest has not been affected in the previous version of the ECIR, the same cannot be made after updating or registering new ECIR on similar facts and material. The judgment in Gameskraft<\/span><\/span><\/a>32<\/sup><\/a> borrowed the law from the Bombay High Court in Priyavrat Mandhana<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>33<\/sup><\/a> on timing of arrest.<\/span><\/p>\n

Recently, the Delhi High Court went further in Kanchana Rai<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>34<\/sup><\/a>, quashing an ECIR outright where the predicate offence had already been judicially closed and the ED had, months later, added an unrelated and old first information report (FIR) by way of an addendum solely to retain the jurisdiction illegally. The court found that the addendum is vitiated by illegality and a colourable exercise of power and therefore cannot breathe fresh jurisdictional life into a proceeding whose foundation has already collapsed. Arguments on bail on the merits, may not efficaciously deal with such issues, which Constitutional Courts can effectively hear and decide.<\/p>\n

Going a little further, in Chaitanya Baghel<\/span><\/span><\/a>35<\/sup><\/a>, it was argued that the ED had carried out further investigation without the permission of the jurisdictional court as mandated under law and has filed successive charge-sheets\/ prosecution complaints. It was argued that since the further investigation is void ab initio, the arrest emanating out of it is also illegal. The Chhattisgarh High Court declined to quash the arrest, and held that it is an “irregularity” rather than an “illegality”. As already discussed above, the challenge resulted into fait accompli, and the SLP was disposed as being infructuous.36<\/sup><\/a> The question of law, though has been left open by the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

The abovequoted instances demonstrate that why the remedy of bail is completely different and is rather inefficacious in certain cases. Pertinently, Section 62<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, can be a possible offshoot of an illegal arrest, which makes an officer who arrests a person without reasons recorded in writing liable to be punished with imprisonment or fine. The provision may, at the very least, be invoked where no reasons whatsoever have been recorded for the arrest. However, it may in an appropriate case, equally be asserted that where the reasons recorded are merely mechanical, illusory or devoid of any real application of mind, the arrest is, in substance, unsupported by reasons at all. A provision of this nature would be rendered largely meaningless if the legality of the arrest itself is not capable of being independently tested.<\/p>\n

It is time<\/p>\n

As the Supreme Court has shown reluctance in the recent past to settle down law concerning PMLA<\/a> arrests, the divergence of opinion of the High Court is likely to widen. The reluctance of the Supreme Court is evident from the fact that while hearing a challenge to arrest under PMLA<\/a> in Arvind Kejriwal<\/span><\/span><\/a>37<\/sup><\/a>, the court has relegated key issues to a larger Bench, which larger Bench has not seen light of the day till date. The issues that are in fact, referred to larger Bench were not even required to be referred as there is no dichotomy which merit consideration by a larger Bench. Moreover, the review of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary<\/span><\/span><\/a>38<\/sup><\/a>, which contain core issues of PMLA<\/a> including that of arrest, is still pending even after more than 4 years of the judgment.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it is the right time for the Supreme Court to settle vital issues under PMLA<\/a> including that of arrest. Till the time, the Supreme Court effectively decides on the powers of the ED and align it with the constitutional principles and the scheme of PMLA<\/a>, uncertainty will prevail. The rise of issues regarding alleged overreach of powers of ED and illegality in assuming and retaining jurisdiction by ED is a direct aftermath of such reluctance of the Supreme Court and fallacy in few previous judgments of the court. The court must act now. It is high time that the court bell the cat.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

*Advocate, Supreme Court of India. Author can be reached at: advocate.arpitgoel@gmail.com<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

1.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1916<\/a>.<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1837, reply of the Minister of State for Finance (Shri Pankaj Chaudhary), dated 4-8-2026.<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 7332<\/a>.<\/p>\n

5.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine TS 4640<\/a>.<\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Pachipala Namratha<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1943<\/a>.<\/p>\n

7.<\/a> (2025) 2 SCC 248<\/a> : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 695.<\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Y. Shiva Reddy<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1852<\/a>.<\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Y. Shiva Reddy<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1944<\/a>.<\/p>\n

10.<\/a> 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10396<\/a>.<\/p>\n

11.<\/a> Deepak Singh<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 7332<\/a>.<\/p>\n

12.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine Chh 34<\/a>.<\/p>\n

13.<\/a> Chaitanya Bhaghel<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1945<\/a>.<\/p>\n

14.<\/a> (2025) 6 SCC 545<\/a> : (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2025) 150 GSTR 121<\/a>.<\/p>\n

15.<\/a> Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 2 SCC 248<\/a> : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 695.<\/p>\n

16.<\/a> Radhika Agarwal<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 6 SCC 545<\/a> : (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2025) 150 GSTR 121<\/a>.<\/p>\n

17.<\/a> Constitution of India<\/a>.<\/p>\n

18.<\/a> Radhika Agarwal<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 6 SCC 545<\/a> : (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 1 : (2025) 150 GSTR 121<\/a>.<\/p>\n

19.<\/a> (2023) 12 SCC 1<\/a> : (2023) 21 ITR-OL 1.<\/p>\n

20.<\/a> Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a>.<\/p>\n

21.<\/a> Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 2 SCC 248<\/a> : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 695.<\/p>\n

22.<\/a> Pachipala Namratha<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine TS 4640<\/a>.<\/p>\n

23.<\/a> Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002<\/a>.<\/p>\n

24.<\/a> (2024) 7 SCC 576<\/a> : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450.<\/p>\n

25.<\/a> (2024) 3 SCC 51<\/a> : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 1.<\/p>\n

26.<\/a> Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 2 SCC 248<\/a> : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 695.<\/p>\n

27.<\/a> Pachipala Namratha<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine TS 4640<\/a>.<\/p>\n

28.<\/a> Vijay Madanlal Choudhary<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2023) 12 SCC 1<\/a> : (2023) 21 ITR-OL 1.<\/p>\n

29.<\/a> 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 6762<\/a>.<\/p>\n

30.<\/a> Enforcement Directorate<\/span> v. Anilkumar Khanderao Pawar<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1942<\/a>.<\/p>\n

31.<\/a> Deepak Singh<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 7332<\/a>.<\/p>\n

32.<\/a> Deepak Singh<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 7332<\/a>.<\/p>\n

33.<\/a> 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4233<\/a>.<\/p>\n

34.<\/a> 2026 SCC OnLine Del 6395<\/a>.<\/p>\n

35.<\/a> Chaitanya Baghel<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, 2025 SCC OnLine Chh 10396<\/a>.<\/p>\n

36.<\/a> Chaitanya Bhaghel<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1945<\/a>.<\/p>\n

37.<\/a> Arvind Kejriwal<\/span> v. Enforcement Directorate<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2025) 2 SCC 248<\/a> : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 695.<\/p>\n

38.<\/a> Vijay Madanlal Choudhary<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span><\/span><\/a>, (2023) 12 SCC 1<\/a> : (2023) 21 ITR-OL 1.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Arpit Goel*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":399258,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[42503,1191],"tags":[117549,117546,117545,117543,117548,117541,79440,117542,117547,117544],"class_list":["post-399257","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-legal-analysis","category-op-ed","tag-constitutional-challenge-to-arrest","tag-enforcement-directorate-arrests","tag-judicial-review-pmla","tag-legality-of-pmla-arrest","tag-pmla-arrest-safeguards","tag-pmla-arrests","tag-pmla-bail","tag-section-19-pmla","tag-special-court-remand","tag-supreme-court-pmla-arrests"],"yoast_head":"\nPMLA Arrests: Supreme Court, Section 19 and Judicial Review | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3614,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/PMLA-arrests.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"constitutional challenge to arrest\",\"Enforcement Directorate arrests\",\"judicial review PMLA\",\"legality of PMLA arrest\",\"PMLA arrest safeguards\",\"PMLA arrests\",\"PMLA Bail\",\"Section 19 PMLA\",\"Special Court remand\",\"Supreme Court PMLA arrests\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Op Eds\",\"OP. ED.\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/\",\"name\":\"PMLA Arrests: Supreme Court, Section 19 and Judicial Review | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/PMLA-arrests.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/PMLA-arrests.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/PMLA-arrests.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"PMLA arrests\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/10\\\/20\\\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"PMLA Arrests: Supreme Court, Section 19 and Judicial Review | SCC Times","description":"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?","og_description":"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?","datePublished":"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/"},"wordCount":3614,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.webp","keywords":["constitutional challenge to arrest","Enforcement Directorate arrests","judicial review PMLA","legality of PMLA arrest","PMLA arrest safeguards","PMLA arrests","PMLA Bail","Section 19 PMLA","Special Court remand","Supreme Court PMLA arrests"],"articleSection":["Op Eds","OP. ED."],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/","name":"PMLA Arrests: Supreme Court, Section 19 and Judicial Review | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.webp","datePublished":"2026-10-20T03:30:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"An analysis of conflicting High Court rulings on PMLA arrests, Section 19 safeguards, judicial review, Special Court remand and the Supreme Court's role.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"PMLA arrests"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/10\/20\/pmla-arrests-supreme-court-judicial-review-section-19\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"PMLA Arrests: Where is the Supreme Court?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/PMLA-arrests.webp","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399257","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=399257"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399257\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":399263,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/399257\/revisions\/399263"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/399258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=399257"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=399257"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=399257"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}