Arrestee Must Get ED's Reasons to Believe; Necessity of Arrest Referred to Larger Bench in Arvind Kejriwal Case

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that courts can judicially review an arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA, and that the 'reasons to believe' must be supplied to the arrestee and must weigh exonerating material too, but declined to quash Arvind Kejriwal's arrest on that limited review. It referred to a larger Bench whether the 'need and necessity to arrest' is a separate ground of challenge, and released him on interim bail (paras 21, 36, 55, 65, 84-85).

Judgment Intelligence

Referred to Larger Bench

Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

2024 INSC 512

Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 12 July 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta
Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 19, 24, 45 and 50; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 41 and 167; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 21 and 22

Final Outcome

Questions on the 'need and necessity to arrest' referred to a larger Bench through the Chief Justice of India, and the appellant released on interim bail, which the larger Bench may extend or recall, in ECIR No. HIU-II/14/2022 on the terms of the order of 10.05.2024 (paras 84-85, 87).

Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 12.07.2024

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

The arrestee is entitled to a copy of the 'reasons to believe', subject to redaction approved by the court (paras 36-37).
Ignoring exonerating material without explanation is an error of law amounting to legal malice (para 56).
Bail under Section 45 can be sought at any stage, and all admissible material can be examined (para 46).
Three questions on the 'need and necessity to arrest' were referred to a larger Bench (para 84).
The Court left it to the appellant to decide whether to continue as Chief Minister (para 86).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The CBI registered a case on 17.08.2022 alleging that Delhi's excise policy was the product of a criminal conspiracy, and the Enforcement Directorate recorded an ECIR on 22.08.2022 (paras 3-5). The appellant, Delhi's Chief Minister, was not an accused in the CBI chargesheets; after a notice of 30.10.2023 and eight summons, the Directorate arrested him on 21.03.2024 (paras 4, 6, 86). On 09.04.2024 the Delhi High Court dismissed his writ petition against the arrest and the remand (opening paragraph). His appeal challenged the validity of the arrest under Section 19(1), not a refusal of bail (paras 2, 7).

Court's Findings

Section 19(1) fences the power to arrest with preconditions: material in possession, written 'reasons to believe' that the person is guilty, and grounds of arrest conveyed (para 9). Judicial review of those conditions remains once the arrestee is produced under Section 19(3) (para 21). As they are jurisdictional conditions, the 'reasons to believe' must be furnished to the arrestee, with any redaction justified by the Directorate before the court (paras 36-37). The onus to establish them lies on the Directorate (para 28). Review is not a mini-trial or merits review (para 39). The officer cannot pick only incriminating material and ignore what exonerates (para 55); doing so is an error of law amounting to legal malice (para 56). Arrest rests on the officer's opinion, whereas bail under Section 45 rests on the Special Court's independent opinion (para 44). Here the arrest rested on several independent grounds, and the attack on the material, including claims of coerced statements, would require a merits review (paras 64-65); those pleas could be raised at bail (para 66). Whether necessity to arrest is a separate ground needed a larger Bench, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary being a three-Judge decision (paras 74, 84).

Legal Principle

An arrest under Section 19(1) of the PMLA is subject to judicial review: the authorised officer's written 'reasons to believe' must rest on material establishing guilt, must consider exculpatory material and must be furnished to the arrestee, though the court does not undertake a merits review (paras 36, 39, 55).

Precedents Relied Upon

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others (2022) SCC Online SC 929
Explained Discussed at ¶ 17, 18, 24, 71, 84
The safeguards in Section 19(1) PMLA are of a higher standard than police powers of arrest; a three-Judge Bench ruling.
Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others 2023 SCC Online SC 1244
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 10, 14, 15
The court must ensure that the conditions of Section 19(1) PMLA are satisfied and the arrest is lawful.
V. Senthil Balaji v. State and others (2024) 3 SCC 51
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12, 13, 72
An arrest may be made only after the 'reasons to believe' are recorded in writing.

View all precedents (6)

Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 16, 73
Section 19(1) PMLA enforces the mandate of Article 22(1); grounds of arrest are personal to the accused.
Barium Chemicals Ltd. and another v. Company Law Board and others AIR 1967 SC 295
Applied Discussed at ¶ 31, 32
'Reason to believe' is not wholly subjective and is open to limited judicial scrutiny.
Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1994) 4 SCC 260
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 69, 70
The existence of the power to arrest is distinct from the justification for exercising it.

Statutory Provisions

CrPC Constitution of India Section 167 (CrPC) Section 41 (CrPC) Article 21 (Constitution of India) Article 14 (Constitution of India) Article 22 (Constitution of India)