Calling out the ED’s actions, the media trials

Last year, in June, when the Madras High Court stayed all proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) against film-producer Akash Bhaskaran, he was left in disbelief but was still a relieved man. Just weeks earlier, sections of the media had portrayed him as a key figure in an alleged “₹1000-crore TASMAC liquor scam”. The ED had raided his home in May, seized a laptop and mobile phones, and had also sealed the premises of his associate, Vikram Ravindran. YouTube personalities claimed that investigators had discovered assets such as luxury watches. The media did not cover itself in glory by airing visuals of ‘incriminating WhatsApp chat print-outs’ which had been “found thrown out” during one of the ED’s searches. Hashtags trended, memes flourished, and political opponents quoted ever-expanding figures in this alleged scam. All this collapsed the moment the courts examined the facts. The Madras High Court held that the raids on Mr. Bhaskaran and Mr. Ravindran were effectively illegal, noting that there was no credible information to link them to any scheduled offence, or even the alleged Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC) scam. The High Court stayed all proceedings against the two men and directed the ED to return all seized devices and materials to them. It also held that the agency had no authority to seal premises or issue coercive summons in the absence of a predicate offence. Faced with judicial scrutiny, the ED revoked the search authorisation and unsealed the premises. And it tendered an unconditional apology. When the ED attempted to issue fresh summons, the Supreme Court of India stepped in and stayed the broader probe, observing that the ED was “crossing all limits” and violating federal principles. #### Waywardness and a vague mandate This is an episode that matters. This is because it captures a pattern that has become familiar: search and arrest first, investigate later, make selective leaks to friendly media, and then quietly retreat when courts demand evidence. The ED has been entrusted to administer the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which is meant to prevent criminals from enjoying the proceeds of crime. The structure of the law is clear in principle: there must first be a scheduled offence that generates proceeds of crime. In practice, the ED has inverted this logic. In many cases, it treats the money-laundering process as independent of an underlying crime, and then proceeds to establish a predicate offence to justify its action. The ED wields sweeping powers. Under Section 50 of the PMLA, it can summon anyone and record statements under oath without clarifying whether the person is a witness or an accused. Under Section 17, it can conduct searches on anyone and seize materials. Under Section 19, it can arrest a person without warrant based on its own subjective “reason to believe”. It can provisionally attach property, freeze bank accounts and cripple businesses before any trial begins. To get bail under the PMLA is notoriously difficult, reversing the presumption of innocence — requiring the accused to prove that they have not committed an offence and for the court to be satisfied that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These powers might be defensible if exercised sparingly against terror financing, drug trafficking or large-scale organised crime — as they are meant to be. Instead, these powers are increasingly deployed as tools of political intimidation. Section 50 summons are used to keep people waiting for hours, unsure of their status and creating psychological pressure on them to comply. There have also been allegations of physical assault in custody. Despite directions by the Supreme Court mandating audio-visual recording of interrogations, the ED has been accused of only selectively recording proceedings, undermining transparency and making judicial review difficult. Section 17 searches are conducted on the flimsiest grounds. Courts have repeatedly held that rumours and vague allegations do not constitute credible information. Yet, the ED has used these to justify raids, even on state-run institutions. Section 19 arrests are justified on the vague grounds of “non-cooperation”, which often means nothing but a refusal to endorse the agency’s narrative. Even when cases have collapsed, the ED is known not to release attached properties. Assets that were acquired long before the commission of the alleged offence are held for years. While the Court’s judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union Of India upheld many of these provisions, the verdict itself is under review, although no hearings have been held, leaving citizens exposed to unchecked power. #### Corruption and political misuse An agency entrusted with extraordinary powers must by itself be beyond reproach. Over the past few years, there have been cases of many ED officers having been caught accepting bribes or extorting money. In November 2023, an ED officer in Rajasthan was arrested for taking a bribe to dilute a chit-fund case. The next month, an officer from the ED’s Madurai sub-zonal office in Tamil Nadu was caught red-handed demanding money to drop a closed case. In August 2024, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested an assistant director with the ED for accepting a bribe from a Mumbai-based jeweller. In May 2025, a senior ED officer was arrested in Odisha for demanding crores from a mining businessman. Every time, the ED has responded with suspension orders and press statements, yet none of these incidents have prompted institutional reform. Claims of moral authority ring hollow when officers tasked with enforcing financial probity themselves indulge in extortion. Benches of the Supreme Court have openly questioned whether the agency is using the PMLA to prolong incarceration rather than secure convictions, and warning that the fight against corruption cannot itself become lawless. In West Bengal, the ED’s raids on I-PAC and its legal offensive against the State Chief Minister, Mamata Banerjee, show the same drift — it raises concerns about selective investigations being pushed into public view ahead of State elections before there is establishment of solid evidence. If the ED can brand a State Chief Minister as obstructionist, based on theatre rather than facts, what does that say about fairness and the rule of law? Therefore, we need to ask whether such prosecutorial zeal serves justice or political impact. The observations by Justice B.V. Nagarathna of the Supreme Court, on the misuse of Article 32, have highlighted the stark irony in the ED’s West Bengal case. While the agency frequently uses its powers in a manner seen to be selective and arbitrary, its direct invocation of Article 32 underscores a double standard. This approach, amid Justice Nagarathna’s broader critique of Article 32 being abused for routine or trivial grievances, has only illustrated the institutional hypocrisy in the politicised use of investigative powers. The same template is now visible in leaked communications about Tamil Nadu Minister K.N. Nehru of the DMK. The media has reported on two letters that the ED wrote to the State’s Director General of Police alleging scams. It must be noted that the ED’s letters amount to recommendations, not findings. The leaks, however, achieved the desired effect: public suspicion, political pressure and reputational damage. Whether the allegations survive judicial scrutiny remains to be seen, but the pattern is unmistakable. #### The need for vigil and checks What is the takeaway in all this? First, the media must introspect. Reporting allegations without verification, especially when they stem from leaks and internal communications, amounts to complicity. Journalism is not stenography. The duty of the press is to step outside and verify the truth. Journalists must resist becoming conduits for false and politically-motivated allegations. Second, scepticism is healthy. The ED’s status as a central agency does not confer infallibility. Its recent record reflects overreach, poor investigation and, at times, an outright abuse of power. Citizens are entitled to demand evidence, not theatrics. Third, the rule of law matters. Money-laundering statutes exist to protect the integrity of the financial system, but these laws must not become tools of intimidation. Finally, courts must urgently define the limits of the ED’s powers and reinforce citizens’ rights. Only firm constitutional guardrails can prevent investigative authority from mutating into arbitrary state power. This is about the health of India’s democracy. If the CBI was once described as a caged parrot, the ED today resembles a hound let loose. Every false or weak case normalises authoritarian overreach. Every media trial erodes faith in institutions. We must ensure that the institutional rot is reversed. Saravanan Annadurai is a senior lawyer who has appeared in several Directorate of Enforcement-related cases, and an official spokesperson for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) Published - January 20, 2026 12:16 am IST ### Related Topics judiciary (system of justice) / money laundering / Tamil Nadu / media / politics / Supreme Court / laws / crime / terrorism (crime) / narcotics & drug trafficking / corruption & bribery / Rajasthan / Madurai / Orissa / West Bengal / police / democracy / law enforcement / government departments