ED should not be vindictive; must act with utmost fairness: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took strong exception to the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in its probe against and arrest of M3M India directors Basant Bansal and Pankaj Bansal. [Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India and Ors.].A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and PV Sanjay Kumar stated that the central agency acted poorly and arbitrarily in exercising its powers in the matter.The bench noted that summons to the accused in respect of a second Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) were issued soon after they had come for interrogation in connection with the first complaint. This chronology of events, as per the Court, spoke volumes and reflected rather poorly on ED's style of functioning. The Court stressed that every action of ED is expected to be transparent, above board and conforming to pristine standards of fair play in action and that the agency is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct."The ED, mantled with far-reaching powers under the stringent Act of 2002, is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct and must be seen to be acting with utmost probity and with the highest degree of dispassion and fairness. In the case on hand, the facts demonstrate that the ED failed to discharge its functions and exercise its powers as per these parameters," the Court said..The Supreme Court had yesterday granted bail to the accused in the case tied to bribery allegations against a former judge.The verdict came in appeals challenging an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had refused to quash the Bansal brothers' arrest and remand by the ED.The Bansal brothers were arrested by the Haryana Police’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered earlier this year against former Special Judge CBI/ED, Sudhir Parmar.The ED claimed that it had received information that Parmar was showing favouritism to the accused in a money laundering case concerning real estate firm, IREO.After the ACB registered the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had also suspended judge Parmar..The top court noted that the ED had recorded the second ECIR immediately after the appellants secured anticipatory bail in relation to the first ECIR, in a manner lacking bonafides. "Surprisingly, in its ‘Written Submissions’, the ED stated that it started its inquiries in respect of this FIR in May, 2023, itself, but strangely, the replies filed by the ED do not state so! It is in this background that this suppression before the Delhi High Court demonstrates complete lack of probity on the part of the ED. Its prompt retaliatory move, upon grant of interim protection to the appellants, by recording the second ECIR and acting upon it, all within the span of a day, so as to arrest the appellants, speaks for itself and we need elaborate no more on that aspect.".Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Randeep Rai, and Vikram Chaudhary with advocates Malak Manish Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal and Rajat Joneja appeared for the Bansals before the apex court.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the ED..[Read Judgment]