Crossing All Limits:’ Court Criticism Of ED Grows, As Supreme Court Reconsiders Sweeping Powers It Granted

“THE TRUTH NEEDS TELLING

‘Crossing All Limits:’ Court Criticism Of ED Grows, As Supreme Court Reconsiders Sweeping Powers It Granted
Saurav Das
Wednesday 24 Sept, 2025
9 min read

Former Haryana Congress member of legislative assembly Surender Panwar was subjected to a 15-hour overnight interrogation in an illegal mining and money-laundering probe by the Enforcement Directorate, whom the Supreme Court rebuked on 2 January 2025 for “inhuman” conduct towards him/ FACEBOOK
Violating the right to sleep. Politically biased investigations. Exceeding legal authority. Manipulating laws. Coercive interrogations. Our review of 20 cases registered between 2021 and now involving India’s supposedly independent agency meant to combat money laundering reveals a pattern of criticism by lower and higher courts. The Chief Justice recently said the Enforcement Directorate was “crossing all limits”, as the Supreme Court reconsiders its own 2022 ruling that gave the agency sweeping power.

New Delhi: Tensions ran high in the Supreme Court of India during an 18 August 2025 hearing on the Tamil Nadu government’s standoff with the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) regarding a state liquor-sales investigation. 

Additional solicitor general S V Raju made an unusual plea to the bench—headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria.

Raju warned that the Court’s criticism of the 69-year-old ED was “percolating” beyond the media and influencing “also the judiciary.” Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, supporting him, added that such criticism was impacting “especially the lower courts”.

Their remarks referred to Chief Justice Gavai’s comments on 22 May 2025, when he stated in the same case that “the ED is crossing all limits.” The case concerns Tamil Nadu’s appeal against the ED’s raids and probe into the state-run liquor retailer, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation (TASMAC). The agency alleges large-scale financial irregularities, including overpricing, tender manipulation, and bribery—causing losses exceeding Rs 1,000 crore.

“How can a [state] corporation commit an offence?” Chief Justice Gavai asked, before staying the investigation. “The ED is crossing all limits… You are totally violating the federal structure of the country.”

During the 18 August hearing, the union government’s top law officers urged the court to temper its criticism of the ED’s conduct. “Of course, we don’t hold anything against anyone… we are only on the facts,” the Chief Justice responded.

Raju and Mehta’s plea did not arise in isolation—it came amid growing judicial concern, from trial courts to the Supreme Court itself, over the ED’s practices.

Patterns of Concern

Over the past three years, judges in at least a dozen orders—and many more oral observations—in cases lodged between 2021 and now have strongly criticised the ED’s “overreach.” An Article 14 analysis of 20 Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA, 2002) cases between 2021 and now reveals a pattern: from illegal arrests and “inhuman” interrogations to procedural sleights.

The language used by courts has been unusually blunt: judges have called the ED “vengeful”, “vindictive”, “oppressive”, stated it is “not a super cop”, and even warned it “can’t act like a crook.”

These judicial critiques have sharpened focus on gaps in oversight and accountability under the PMLA, which is the main law that gives the ED its powers to investigate money laundering, trace assets, confiscate properties derived from illicit funds, and prosecute offenders.

Legal experts consulted by Article 14 said the ED’s conduct at times skirts legal boundaries, exploiting procedural gray areas unlikely to withstand scrutiny. 

Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat observed: “As a prosecuting agency, the ED is legally required to act neutrally and fairly, though that does not always appear to be the case. The agency has often acted beyond the scope of its powers.”

The courts, too, have sometime