Allahabad HC Questions ED's Use of Clerk for Summons, Cites Tech Lapses in PMLA Case

LUCKNOW — In a significant order highlighting the importance of procedural propriety, the Allahabad High Court has cast "serious doubt" on the Enforcement Directorate's (ED) practice of using an Upper Division Clerk (UDC) for serving summons. While granting anticipatory bail to an accused in a money-laundering case linked to the UP Police recruitment paper leak, the court sharply criticized the agency's antiquated and flawed service methods, urging the adoption of modern technology to ensure authenticity.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, presiding over the Lucknow Bench, observed that the manner of service was improper and demonstrated a lack of awareness of contemporary technological tools that can validate such procedural actions. The ruling underscores a growing judicial trend of holding investigative agencies accountable for not just the substance of their cases, but also the procedural integrity of their investigations.

The case, Rajeev Nayan Mishra @ Rajeev Nayan vs. Directorate Of Enforcement , concerns an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) lodged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) following an FIR by the UP Special Task Force (STF) regarding a police recruitment exam paper leak. The applicant, Rajeev Nayan Mishra, sought anticipatory bail, fearing arrest after the ED claimed he failed to appear despite repeated summons.

---

Scrutiny of a 'Doubtful' Service of Summons

The core of the court's decision hinged on the ED's method of serving summons. The agency contended that its UDC had visited the applicant's stated residence, found his maternal aunt who refused to accept the notice, and consequently affixed it to a wall, taking a photograph as proof.

However, Justice Vidyarthi meticulously dismantled this claim, pointing out glaring inconsistencies that undermined its credibility. The court noted that the service report lacked the signature or thumb impression of any independent witness to the affixation. More damningly, the photograph submitted as evidence failed to achieve its primary purpose.

"The photograph in question did not show the summons pasted on the wall," the Court observed, nor did it include the name of the applicant's maternal uncle, at whose house the accused was supposedly residing. This lack of verifiable detail led the court to conclude it could not place "enough substance in such service."

In strong remarks, Justice Vidyarthi critiqued the entire process:

"The manner in which the clerk of E.D. claims to have served the summons on the applicant is not the proper manner of service of any legal notice or summons. The Clerk who claims to have gone to serve the summons has not taken care to click a photograph of the house along with the notice pasted on the wall of the house."

A Call for Technological Upgradation

The court went beyond merely pointing out the flaws, offering a constructive critique of the ED's operational methods in an increasingly digital world. Justice Vidyarthi highlighted the disconnect between the agency's practices and the readily available technology that could have lent credibility to their claims.

"Nowadays with the advent of modern technology, evidence of visiting a place and affixation of summons on the wall of a particular house can be collected by taking a photograph with advanced applications available in any smart phone, which shows the geographical coordinates of the place and the date and time of taking the photograph," he observed.

The judge pointedly added that the clerk involved was "perhaps not aware of such applications," a statement that implicitly questions the training and standard operating procedures within the agency for such a critical task.

Questioning the Role of a UDC in Field Operations

The court also raised a fundamental administrative law question regarding the delegation of duties within the ED. It expressed "serious doubt" about whether a UDC, a role traditionally associated with administrative and clerical desk work, could be officially tasked with the fieldwork of serving summons.

"Upper Division Clerks are primarily entrusted with desk jobs and there is a serious doubt whether the duty of service of summons can officially been assigned to an Upper Division Clerk in accordance with some rules or regulations," the order stated.

This observation opens a new avenue for challenging procedural actions by the ED, inviting scrutiny of the agency's internal rules and the legal authority of its administrative staff to perform quasi-policing functions.

---

Background and Bail Considerations

The ED opposed the anticipatory bail plea primarily on the grounds of non-cooperation, arguing that Mishra had failed to appear when summoned. However, the applicant's counsel, led by Anuuj Taandon, successfully argued that the non-appearance was not willful.

The court noted that the first summons, dated November 4, 2024, was issued while Mishra was still incarcerated, making compliance impossible. He was only released from custody on November 7, 2024. The subsequent summons were the ones deemed improperly served.

Furthermore, the applicant’s counsel highlighted that his mobile phone had been seized by the STF, preventing him from receiving any electronic communications from the ED.

The court took a holistic view of the circumstances, considering that: 1. The applicant had already endured over seven months in custody for the predicate offence. 2. He had been granted bail for the scheduled offence by a coordinate Bench. 3. His statement under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded while he was in custody. 4. His properties had already been provisionally attached by the ED. 5. The ED had made no attempt to arrest him in the period following his release from jail.

Considering these factors, alongside the deeply flawed service of summons, the court found sufficient grounds to grant anticipatory bail. Mishra was directed to furnish a personal bond and two sureties, provide his current contact details to the ED, cooperate with the investigation, and refrain from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

This ruling serves as a cautionary tale for investigative agencies, emphasizing that procedural shortcuts and outdated methods can weaken their case, particularly when an individual's liberty is at stake. For legal practitioners, it reinforces the principle that a meticulous examination of procedural compliance can be a powerful tool in defending clients, even in cases prosecuted under stringent statutes like the PMLA.