Supreme Court Declines to Address Bhupesh Baghel's Appeal Concerning Section 44 of the PMLA Act
The Supreme Court of India has upheld the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) wide-ranging powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the authority to conduct investigation, arrest, search, and seizure. This ruling, made in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India judgment (July 2022), implicitly affirms the ED’s ability to take further investigative steps based on subsequent complaints and developments in money laundering cases, as allowed under Section 44 of the PMLA.
However, in recent hearings in August 2025, the Supreme Court has expressed strong reservations about the functioning of the ED, particularly its extended investigations, low conviction rates (less than 10% despite thousands of cases), and the manner in which it exercises its powers. The Court emphasized that although the ED has broad powers under the PMLA, it must function strictly within the bounds of law and cannot "act like a crook," indicating that its investigative and enforcement powers are not unlimited or immune from judicial scrutiny.
In the ongoing case of Bhupesh Kumar Baghel v. Union Of India And Ors, the former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister and Congress leader filed a petition challenging the ED's powers under Section 44 of the PMLA. The ED is probing money laundering allegations in connection with an alleged ₹2,000 crore liquor syndicate racket in Chhattisgarh during Baghel's chief ministership.
During the hearing of Baghel's plea, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the ED files supplementary complaints in PMLA cases every few months, leading to delay in trial. The Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that there is nothing wrong in the provision but if it is being misused, the aggrieved can approach the High Court. Justice Kant said, "There is nothing wrong in the provision. If it is being abused, then go to the High Court." Justice Bagchi remarked, "The devil is not in the law but in the abuse."
The Court referred to the Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case, stating that further evidence can be brought on record with the prior permission of the court. However, Kapil Sibal stated that the ED does not seek prior permission for further investigation. The petition was disposed of with the liberty to approach the High Court.
While the search results do not mention this specific case directly in relation to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Section 44 of the PMLA, the principles established in Vijay Madanlal and reiterated in 2025 hearings apply generally: the ED has the legal authority to conduct further investigation upon receipt of subsequent complaints or information related to money laundering. However, the Court is cautious that this power is exercised with due process and within legal limits.
In summary, the Supreme Court affirms the ED’s authority to conduct further investigation based on subsequent complaints under PMLA but insists that the ED must operate strictly within legal limits, ensuring fair procedure and accountability. The case is a reminder of the importance of adhering to the rule of law, even in complex investigations involving allegations of money laundering.
Read also:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
- Court petitions to reverse established decision on same-sex marriage legalization
- Independence supporters in New Caledonia refuse agreement offering authority without a vote on sovereignty
- Proposed Standardization of Food Labeling Laws Among Member States by the Commission
