Supreme Court Limits ED’s Arrest Powers Post-Cognizance: Reaffirming Personal Liberty under PMLA

Crucially, the Court held that if an accused appears before the Special Court in response to a summons, they cannot be considered in "custody." Therefore, they do not need to apply for bail or satisfy the stringent "twin conditions" under Section 45 of the PMLA. Instead, the court may simply ask the person to furnish bonds for appearance. This prevents the PMLA—a law with exceptionally high barriers for bail—from being used as a tool for prolonged pre-trial detention without judicial intervention. This judgment is a vital intervention in the ongoing debate over the potential misuse of central agencies. By reinforcing that the "power to arrest is not a mandate to arrest," the Court has upheld the sanctity of Article 21. It restores the balance between the state's power to investigate financial crimes and the individual's right to liberty, ensuring that judicial oversight remains the primary safeguard against executive overreach. UPSC Relevance: This ruling is essential for topics related to the "Separation of Powers" and "Judicial Oversight" in GS Paper II, as well as "Money Laundering" in GS Paper III. It provides a critical case study on balancing national security/economic laws with Fundamental Rights, specifically the right to personal liberty under Article 21.