Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Bengaluru: Four arrested for housebreaking, threats, extortion; fake PSI among accused
Bengaluru: Vidyaranyapura police have arrested four persons, including a man posing as a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI), for allegedly breaking into a house, threatening the occupants, and extorting money while wearing police uniforms.
The arrested accused have been identified as Mallikarjuna, Pramod, Vinay, and Hrithik.
Police said the accused had hatched a plan to pose as police personnel, conduct fake raids, and extort money from residents by intimidation.
ALSO READ: Bantwal police arrest two men for illegal sale of narcotics, seize two vehicles, 810 gm ganja
According to the police, Mallikarjuna had failed the PSI examination twice and later falsely projected himself as a PSI. He allegedly conducted photo shoots in his hometown, Siraguppa, wearing a police uniform, baton, cap, and shoes, claiming to be serving as a PSI in Bengaluru.
On December 7, the four accused allegedly went to the house of Naveen in the Vidyaranyapura limits, threatened him with a stick and an iron rod, and claimed they had information that he was selling ganja. Under the pretext of searching, they allegedly extorted ₹87,000 through bank transfer, ₹53,000 in cash kept in the house, and ₹2,000 from his wallet.
Following Naveen’s complaint, Vidyaranyapura police registered a case and launched an operation, leading to the arrest of all four accused. Police have seized ₹45,000 in cash and the car used to commit the crime.
Further investigation is underway.
