14-hour questioning by ED no sign of heroism, detrimental to human dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has instructed the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to reform its interrogation practices by establishing a "reasonable time limit" for questioning suspects under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu remarked that the ED's practice of conducting interrogations lasting up to 15 hours is detrimental to human dignity, stating that such lengthy sessions are not commendable.

The court's comments came during its ruling that the ED's arrest of Surender Panwar, a Congress candidate for the upcoming Haryana Assembly elections and an incumbent MLA, was "illegal." It was noted that Panwar endured an interrogation lasting 14 hours and 40 minutes on July 19, linked to allegations of illegal mining and falsifying e-rawana bills. The ED had based its case on eight FIRs associated with a fraud investigation, along with additional charges from various legal statutes.

Counsel for Panwar argued that he was not mentioned in any of the FIRs that informed the ED's actions, raising concerns about the timing of his arrest given the impending elections. The court observed that the ED attempted to associate Panwar with illegal mining activities by citing his position as a director in a relevant company. However, it found insufficient evidence to support this assertion, with records from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs indicating that Panwar had not held that position since November 2013.

Justice Sindhu emphasized that although the ED's case revolves around "illegal mining," this particular charge does not constitute a scheduled offense under the PMLA, meaning Panwar cannot be prosecuted on this basis. The court also highlighted that the relevant offense under the Environment Protection Act had been removed from the list of scheduled offenses under the PMLA in a recent amendment. Consequently, the court concluded that there is no prima facie evidence connecting Panwar to any activities involving proceeds of crime.

Additionally, the court dismissed the ED's claim that Panwar could not challenge the legality of his arrest since it had initially received judicial approval. The court referenced the principle "Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus," indicating that if the foundational basis for an arrest is invalid, the arrest itself cannot stand.

In light of these findings, the court overturned the arrest order and the associated grounds for arrest, as well as the remand order issued by the Special Judge. Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema represented the petitioner, along with a team of advocates, while the ED was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain and Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang.