Does ED Have Power For 'Further Investigation'? Supreme Court To Examine IAS Officer Saumya Chaurasia’s Plea Against 'Evergreen Custody'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine a critical legal question that could redefine the powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED): Does the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) grant the agency the substantive power to conduct "further investigation" after a case has reached the trial stage?

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi issued notice to the Centre and the ED on a writ petition filed by Chhattisgarh cadre IAS officer Saumya Chaurasia. The petition challenges the legality of her arrest in December 2025, arguing that the ED is using the guise of "further investigation" to keep individuals in "evergreen custody."

The crux of the petition lies in how the PMLA is interpreted. According to Saumya Chaurasia’s legal team, led by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the PMLA is a "self-contained statute." This means it has its own rules and doesn't automatically inherit powers from the general criminal law (CrPC or the new BNSS) unless explicitly stated.

The plea argues that:

1. No Express Provision: Unlike the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 173(8)), the PMLA does not have a specific clause that gives the ED the power to keep investigating once a prosecution complaint (charge sheet) is filed.
2. Misinterpretation of Section 44: The ED often relies on Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the PMLA to file supplementary complaints. The petitioner argues this section is merely "clarificatory" regarding court procedures and does not grant the agency a fresh power to arrest or investigate.
3. Inconsistency with CrPC: Section 65 of the PMLA says that CrPC rules apply only if they aren't inconsistent with the PMLA. The petitioner claims that importing "further investigation" powers from the CrPC is a violation of legislative intent.

A major highlight of the petition is the allegation of "evergreen custody"—a practice where agencies supposedly arrest individuals repeatedly on the same set of facts in different proceedings to ensure they stay in jail.

The plea points out a striking timeline:

1. Prolonged Investigation: Chaurasia had been facing investigation for over three years without being arrested.
2. The Arrest: She was named in an initial complaint in June 2024 and five subsequent supplementary complaints, but was only arrested on December 16, 2025.
3. Immediate Complaint: Within just ten days of her arrest, the ED filed a massive 518-page prosecution complaint supported by 172 documents.

The petitioner argues that if the ED could produce such a voluminous complaint in just ten days, they clearly already had all the evidence. Therefore, the arrest was not a necessity for the investigation but a "formality" to ensure she remained in custody.

The petition relies on several landmark Supreme Court rulings to argue that even if further investigation is allowed, it cannot be a "free pass" for the agency.

In cases like Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar and the famous Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Courts have emphasized that "further evidence" can only be brought on record with the prior permission of the competent court. Chaurasia's plea asserts that the ED has been bypassing this judicial control, which is an essential safeguard for personal liberty.

The matter gains further weight due to a recent order by the Chhattisgarh High Court in a similar plea filed by co-accused Chaitanya Baghel (son of former CM Bhupesh Baghel).

While the High Court admitted that "further investigation" should only be done with court permission, it termed the ED’s failure to get such permission a mere "irregularity" rather than an "illegality." Chaitanya Baghel has also challenged this in the Supreme Court, and the top court is now looking at both matters together to settle the law.

This case is not just about one officer or one scam. It touches upon the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioner, it could lead to:

1. Stricter Checks on ED: The agency might need explicit court approval for every step of an investigation after the first complaint.
2. End of Supplementary Arrests: It could limit the ED's ability to arrest people years into an investigation under the tag of "further evidence."
3. Clarification on PMLA vs. BNSS: It will clarify how much of the new criminal laws (BNSS) can be "imported" into money laundering cases.

As the Supreme Court begins its examination, the legal fraternity and civil servants across the country are watching closely. The outcome will decide whether the ED’s power of investigation is truly "limitless" or if it must operate within the strict boundaries of judicial oversight.

Case Details: Saumya Chaurasia v. Union of India & Anr.

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi.