Back
Upholds PMLA Arrest of Fertility Specialist in Alleged Illegal Surrogacy Racket
A Division Bench of the has reaffirmed strict limits on when reviewing arrests under the . The Court refused to quash the February 2026 arrest of a Visakhapatnam-based fertility doctor, ruling that petitioners cannot transform challenges to PMLA arrests into or miniature trials on investigative merits.
The Core Legal Principle: Limits of in Nascent PMLA Investigations
Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda emphasized that extraordinary under remains available only where , jurisdictional absence, or clear constitutional breaches appear on the face of the record. In ongoing PMLA probes, courts must confine scrutiny to whether statutory safeguards in have been observed, rather than assessing the weight or sufficiency of evidence collected.
“We find that the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to nullify an arrest under of the PMLA… is directed to legality, jurisdictional facts and fairness of procedure and not an appellate reassessment of the material.”
The bench further clarified that the existence of , combined with material suggesting generation or layering of , suffices to sustain arrest at the threshold stage.
Background: From Surrogacy Complaints to ED’s ECIR
Dr. Pachipala Namratha, a fertility specialist, faced multiple FIRs registered at Gopalapuram and later Central Crime Station police stations in 2025. The complaints alleged fraudulent surrogacy practices, including handover of babies not biologically related to commissioning parents and continued operations despite a five-year licence suspension imposed by the Telangana State Medical Council in 2016.
The recorded ECIR No. ECIR/HYZO/46/2025 and conducted searches in September-October 2025. After recording statements under , the agency arrested the petitioner on . A remanded her to custody the same day. The writ petition sought to declare the arrest non-est, unconstitutional and in violation of safeguards, while also questioning the very maintainability of PMLA proceedings.
Petitioner’s Attack on “Mechanical” Grounds and the ED’s Defence
Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the “” and “” were verbatim reproductions of statutory language, devoid of any specific material linking the doctor to identifiable . Reliance was placed on and to insist that similarity between the two documents itself proved .
The ED countered that the arrest followed extensive investigation: multiple , search-and-seizure operations, statements of co-accused and victims, bank trails, and property records. The agency maintained that similarity between documents merely reflected identity of facts and did not negate independent subjective satisfaction. It also pointed to the need to prevent tampering with evidence and dissipation of .
Why the High Court Refused to Interfere
The bench systematically rejected each ground. On the question of whether the had formed a “secondary opinion”, the judges held that remand orders need not be elaborate judgments. Brevity does not equate to abdication of duty when the record shows the magistrate perused the ED file and was satisfied about statutory compliance.
The Court also declined to adjudicate whether the predicate offences squarely attracted scheduled offences under PMLA or whether actionable “” had been quantified. Such factual determinations, the judges observed, belong to the trial court or bail proceedings under the stringent twin conditions of .
“The petitioner has an efficacious avenue before the to seek regular bail and to urge all permissible defences. Therefore, the writ Court cannot be invited to do indirectly what the statutory scheme requires to be tested before the .”
Key Observations from the Judgment
“ of the PMLA requires authorized Officer must have ‘material in possession’ and must record in writing ‘’ that the person is guilty… demands the existence of relevant material and a rational nexus between that material and the belief recorded, not a pre-trial adjudication of guilt.”
“The PMLA is enacted to combat laundering of proceeds generated from serious criminality… the statute adopts a distinct architecture of investigation, attachment, adjudication and prosecution.”
“While the Bench remains vigilant to protect liberty through procedural safeguards, yet must be equally vigilant that the extraordinary is not used to pre-emptively arrest the investigative process in cases having serious social ramifications.”
Practical Impact and Future Course
The writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner retains the right to approach the for regular bail or other statutory remedies. The ruling consolidates a consistent line of precedent that challenges in writ proceedings must remain narrowly focused on compliance and jurisdiction, leaving questions of evidentiary sufficiency and necessity of arrest for the bail court.
The decision also signals judicial reluctance to stall investigations into alleged exploitation within the surrogacy industry, especially where vulnerable couples and children’s identity rights are said to be at stake.
(Information from contemporaneous reporting has been incorporated to provide context on the scale of complaints against fertility practices without altering the legal reasoning of the Court.)
