Back
ED Power to Share Information Under PMLA Section 66(2) Validates UAPA Probe:
In a significant ruling addressing the interplay between financial investigations and national security, the has dismissed petitions challenging an FIR registered against members of "," a US-based organisation. The court upheld the legality of proceedings initiated for offences under the and the , affirming that the (ED) possesses the to share with local police.
The Backdrop: A Trail of Debit Cards The legal challenge arose following the interception of Micah Mark at Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport in . Authorities reportedly found him in possession of 24 international debit cards issued by , USA, all bearing the name "Santosh Kumar." Subsequent inquiries by the suggested a sophisticated network involving the withdrawal of nearly ₹92.55 crores between and .
The ED alleged that this mechanism—using generic identities to bypass KYC norms—served to channel illicit funds into regions affected by Left-Wing Extremism (LWE). Counsel for the accused argued that the ED exceeded its jurisdiction by communicating these findings to the , claiming that proceedings under the should remain siloed from other criminal investigations.
Legal Contentions: Siloed Versus Harmonious Interpretation The petitioners, represented by senior counsel, argued that the is not empowered to trigger criminal prosecutions outside the scope of the PMLA. They contended that adding UAPA provisions was a "draconian" overreach and that the FIR should be quashed as it lacked material.
Conversely, the state and the argued that the investigation revealed grave threats to national sovereignty. By invoking , the ED maintained it was legally bound to share information regarding of other statutory laws to ensure public safety and financial integrity.
Key Observations Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the order, emphasized that financial monitoring statutes must be read in tandem with other legal requirements to prevent fragmentation of justice.
-
"The statutory architecture is clear: the provision is intended to ensure that information uncovered in the course of investigation under one enactment does not remain siloed where it reveals infractions under another."
-
"Statutes operating in cognate fields must be , not in ."
-
"The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform into , threatening National unity and public safety."
-
"In the teeth of such accusations as observed hereinabove, investigation is not merely permissible - it becomes imperative."
Court’s Decision: Maintaining Vigilance The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the intelligence provided by the ED via the Section 66(2) dossier established a sufficient case to warrant further investigation. The court noted that because the allegations involve the nexus between foreign funding and internal security, it would be inappropriate to stifle the investigation at its nascent stage.
The ruling reinforces that national security concerns take precedence in judicial scrutiny of investigative processes. While the court allowed the petitioners to seek further legal remedies at later stages of the trial, it made it clear that the current FIR reflects a serious to dismantle covert networks that undermine the stability of the nation.
